Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message <[🔎] email@example.com>, Francesco
Poli <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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" :-)
Anthony W. Youngman - email@example.com