LGPL Version Exclusivity (Was: Releasing software under both LGPL 2.1 & 3 - A good idea?)

[Scott Elcomb]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:50 AM, colin davidson
<colinpdavidson-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> First off, to release under any license (or at least, to do so legally), you
> must be the copyright holder. As copyright holder you may release under as
> many licenses as you choose, unless or until you enter into a legally
> binding agreement with someone else not to. In other words, if you want to
> do an LGPLv2.1 release and then a seperate LGPLv3 release, noone in the
> world can legally prevent you.

I would assume the same, however I'm likely to listen closely to what
the EFF / GNU people have to say.

> However, if one person releases a patch under v2.1 and another releases a
> different patch under v3, you may never be able to (legally) combine them.
> For that reason, you need to seriously consider if you actually want your
> code running around out there under 2 different (and for all that they have
> the same name, incompatible) licenses.

Agreed.  Another reason for offering both licenses directly from the
project site - everyone's on the same page.

-- 
  Scott Elcomb
  http://www.psema4.com/
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists