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

[Mike Oliver]

Quoting Scott Elcomb <psema4-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>:

> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Scott Elcomb <psema4-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> [...]
>
> In following up with licensing-at-gnu.org, I received this reply:
>
>  The "later version" option doesn't mean that the software is licensed
>  under both LGPLv2.1 and LGPLv3. It means that the software is licensed
>  under LGPLv2.1 *or* LGPLv3 (with an exclusive "or"), and it is the
>  option of the distributor to choose which one.
>
> I've responded by saying that I'm still thinking on the matter and
> that I'd be in touch in a few days.
>
> I can't quite put my finger on it, but this just strikes me as wrong.
> (I can release under the LGPLv2.1, but if I want an LGPLv3 version out
> there someone else has to do it?)
>
> Just curious if anyone has any thoughts on this.

I'm not a lawyer, but I just don't believe this can be correct.  I think
this may be what the GNU people would *like* you to do, but I can't see how
they can keep you from releasing your IP under whatever licenses you like.
You have no contractual relationship with them at all.

Or have I missed something?

--
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