Releasing software under both LGPL 2.1 & 3 - A good idea?

[Scott Elcomb]

I've been paring down the concept behind my project Atomic OS and
things are (late but) improving a good deal.  A "problem" has cropped
up in the form of licensing.

One of the major changes in the project is that the One Ring library
approach wasn't a good idea. I'd like to offload a bunch of work (eg.
the GUI components) to libraries licensed under the GPL 3 and Apache
2.

Atomic OS is (/was) LGPL 2.1 and for compatibility with existing DHTML
documents, I'd like to keep the core of the project at this version.

If I want to tie it in with ExtJS (GPL 3; say for GUI widgets) or
Appcelerator (Apache 2; a RIA generator) then Atomic OS needs to be
LGPL 3 - at least if I understand the situation correctly.

In order to get around this I'm thinking to excerise the "at your
option any later version" bit and release under the LGPL 2.1 then a v3
version immediately following (as part of the build process).

Not sure if it's a good idea though.  Any suggestions?  TIA
- Scott.


P.S.
If interested, I've an early outline/draft (v0.1) of a manual for the
next release up at http://projects.psema4.com/atomos/

The glibc (LGPL 2.1) port to JavaScript should be fun ;-)
-- 
  Scott Elcomb
  http://www.psema4.com/blog/
--
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