Re: libidn re-license
Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> writes:
> On 07/03/12 09:01, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it
>> from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+.
>
> This effectively means: recipients of the new libidn may choose any
> license which they could choose for the old libidn, except for the
> LGPLv2 and LGPLv2.1.
I don't think that is correct. There may be proprietary software that
cannot use LGPLv3 works but could use LGPLv2 works.
> Is there a particular reason why you want to deny permission to use your
> library under those specific licenses?
That question appears to me be similar to asking why all software in
Debian isn't public domain or MIT/BSD licensed. Licenses like the GPL
deny some permissions in order to promote software freedom. That is
intentional.
> Obviously, it's your choice as copyright holder, but I can't say I'm
> entirely happy about libraries getting a more restrictive license in
> newer versions; I feel as though the general principle of
> backwards-compatible API (everything that used to work should still
> work) applies just as much to licensing. Hopefully nobody's going to end
> up forking an older version as libidn-lgpl2 or something...
I disagree. There are several libraries in Debian that have been
relicensed from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+, just like several programs have been
relicensed from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+. I believe that is a good thing and
I'd rather see more of that than less.
This is going to be my last response on the licensing chose sub-thread
since I don't see anything productive coming out of it.
/Simon
Reply to: