Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> writes: > On 07/03/12 09:01, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it >> from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+. > > This effectively means: recipients of the new libidn may choose any > license which they could choose for the old libidn, except for the > LGPLv2 and LGPLv2.1.
I don't think that is correct. There may be proprietary software that cannot use LGPLv3 works but could use LGPLv2 works. > Is there a particular reason why you want to deny permission to use your > library under those specific licenses? That question appears to me be similar to asking why all software in Debian isn't public domain or MIT/BSD licensed. Licenses like the GPL deny some permissions in order to promote software freedom. That is intentional. > Obviously, it's your choice as copyright holder, but I can't say I'm > entirely happy about libraries getting a more restrictive license in > newer versions; I feel as though the general principle of > backwards-compatible API (everything that used to work should still > work) applies just as much to licensing. Hopefully nobody's going to end > up forking an older version as libidn-lgpl2 or something... I disagree. There are several libraries in Debian that have been relicensed from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+, just like several programs have been relicensed from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+. I believe that is a good thing and I'd rather see more of that than less. This is going to be my last response on the licensing chose sub-thread since I don't see anything productive coming out of it. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mx7mcaq7....@latte.josefsson.org