[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: