Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

["Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@thewolery.demon.co.uk>]

In message <[🔎] 20091214220044.1cc797d6.frx@firenze.linux.it>, Francesco 
Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> writes
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:36:58 +0000 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>
> [...]
> > That's why, actually, given the choice of LGPL 2.1 or 3, much as I
> > haven't investigated 3 very much, I'll almost certainly prefer 3 to 2.1
> > because it means other people CAN'T relicence my code :-)
>
> Please note that adopting the LGPLv3 makes the work not linkable with
> GPLv2 (only) works.
>
> If you choose the LGPL in order to obtain a weak copyleft that allows
> linking with proprietary code, forbidding linking with GPLv2 code looks
> a bit awkward...
I'd add an exception to LGPL 3 :-)

Actually, I'd probably choose pure "GPL 2 or 3" :-)

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk