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. Is there a particular reason why you want to deny permission to use your library under those specific licenses? Is there something they allow that you want to forbid? If not, I'm not sure that I see why you'd want to change it... particularly if you have to get into dual-licensing. I can see advantages of the LGPLv3 over the LGPLv2 from a clarity point of view (it's just the GPLv3 with exceptions, whereas the LGPLv2 and v2.1 are separate licenses with explicit provision to relicense to the GPLv2), but an explicit dual-license seems as though it defeats that clarity. 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... S -- 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/4f588396.3060...@debian.org