[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Copyright question
- From: David Kastrup <dak@...>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:45:21 +0200
Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@GMX.net> writes:
> On 14/08/2011 23:03, Marc Balmer wrote:
>> Choosing GPL over a MIT/BSD style license mean limiting the use of a
>> software. Think of it. There is a reason why many smart people choose
>> an MIT/BSD/ISC style license over the GPL.
> Well, some smart people put the GPL license over their library (so
> people are free to use it, as long as the final product is GPL
> itself!) AND allow to buy a proprietary license for the hooked people
> that want to use the library in a closed source product...
> Looks legitimate to me, except when they adopt such licensing late in
> the game (like ExtJS did, going from LGPL to GPL).
Depends on whether they are changing the license on their own work, or
on contributions made with the understanding that the license would
remain the same (possibly with version upgrades).
However, the LGPL includes the right for relicensing the whole work
under the GPL, so it is a right already available for downstream.
Should upstream have fewer rights than downstream has?
A contributor not satisfied with that choice is free to create his own
upstream that remains LGPL. Whoever does work on the library, up- or
downstream, has the option of changing the license on distribution
according to its provisions. LGPL can move to GPL, GPL can go nowhere,
BSD can go pretty much anywhere including proprietary.
If you want to move in other ways, like LGPL to proprietary, or GPL to
BSD, you need to be sole copyright holder.