On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:39:13PM -0300, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > LGPL is copyleft, but the copyleft "preservation" part is required > mainly when the user makes changes to the original (LGPL'd) work > *itself*, this is why it's a weak copyleft license, while a simple > dependency on the LGPL'd work wouldn't need to carry the same or > compatible license (unless if statically linked, if I'm not mistaken). > > _______________________________________________ > libreplanet-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
I've concluded in a previous thread[0] that the proper licensing for a project to allow permissive licenses, yet only be usable by free software projects, would be to license a library under the (A)GPL and then to allow an LGPL dual-licensing for any project licensed under exclusively FSF approved licenses. This would also avoid license proliferation since it is simply a combination of two existing licenses. With this kind of licensing scheme, one's library could be used by any free software project but is not permitted to by used by a non-free software project (as then the terms of the (A)GPL would apply making it free software). [0] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2017-04/msg00019.html -- Nicolás Ortega Froysa (Deathsbreed) https://themusicinnoise.net/ http://uk7ewohr7xpjuaca.onion/ Public PGP Key: https://themusicinnoise.net/[email protected]_pub.asc http://uk7ewohr7xpjuaca.onion/[email protected]_pub.asc
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
