Hi, On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 08:31:57PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > After thinking about this some more, I guess their fear might be that > people modify and redistribute their ELPA library as part of a bigger > GPL project. As the LGPL->GPL relicensing seems to be a one-way street, > they might understandably think that they will not be able to > incorporate those GPL'd modifications into their version.
As an update to this, I talked one of the ELPA upstream guys and the above is indeed why they try to remove the GPL relicensing. However, I also talked to the FSF about this, and they had a different reasoning. This summarizes their argument: | The LGPLv3 is a superset of the GPLv3, and as the GPL is part of it | and allows for additional restrictions to be removed, one can just | remove all the other additional clauses of the LGPLv3 (excluding the | already removed clause 2b) and essentially get the GPLv3. In this sense, using the ELPA code in a GPLv2+ program appears to be fine. I still hope the ELPA authors reconsider and relicense their work to plain LGPLv3. Cheers, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
