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

[Scott Elcomb]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:40 PM, James Knott <james.knott-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> You can licence under multiple licences.  Here's an example of one instance:
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081104-diebold-faces-gpl-infringement-lawsuit-over-voting-machines.html

I fully agree with (as I'm certain any number of other companies would
agree with) multi-licensing.

This specific case looks like it's deals particularly with the GPL, in
which (I would figure) it's completely irresponsible - not to mention
unethical - to use the software commercially without providing the
source.

In my case:

 - As a Rich Internet Application development library, source always
accompanies the distribution (availability of source code is a
pre-determined _MUST-HAVE_ in web apps; otherwise they don't work.
;-)

 - As an LGPL licensed library, ANY project (including proprietary
products) may make use of Atomic OS - with or without "proper
attribution."  Evan L. may be able to provide some insight as to /why/
I chose this license...  After a fair bit of research I selected the
LGPL - for the very reasons he mentioned (and not because it was he
that mentioned them).

Version 3 throws me for a loop only because the GPL3 is (what I'd
call) extremely viral.  In order for existing applications to use an
LGPLv3 library, the application (all-of-it) must be entirely upgraded
to fit-in with the GPLv3 / LGPLv3 licensing schema.

-- 
  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