| |||||||||||||
GPL -> LGPL is a logical move here, regardless of what rabid Stallmanites sayGPL -> LGPL is a logical move here, regardless of what rabid Stallmanites sayPosted Feb 20, 2012 22:00 UTC (Mon) by elanthis (guest, #6227)In reply to: GPL -> LGPL is a logical move here, regardless of what rabid Stallmanites say by Kluge Parent article: VLC 2.0 released
That makes as much sense as asking why people switch to the BSD or MIT license to avoid the GPLv3.
(Log in to post comments)
GPL -> LGPL is a logical move here, regardless of what rabid Stallmanites say Posted Feb 20, 2012 23:09 UTC (Mon) by Kluge (guest, #2881) [Link]
I disagree. The previous comment implied that the developers of VLC dislike the changes introduced with version 3 of the GPL. If that's true, then why use *any* GPL with the "or later version" language? If it was specifically the GPLv3 that they disliked, they could have used LGPLv2.1 *only*. AFAIK, the "or later version" issue doesn't arise with BSD or MIT licenses.
GPL -> LGPL is a logical move here, regardless of what rabid Stallmanites say Posted Feb 20, 2012 23:19 UTC (Mon) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
> If it was specifically the GPLv3 that they disliked, they could have
> used LGPLv2.1 *only*.
Nota bene: Assuming that I'm reading the GPL compatibility matrix correctly, "LGPLv2.1 only" is actually compatible with GPLv3.
GPL -> LGPL is a logical move here, regardless of what rabid Stallmanites say Posted Feb 21, 2012 22:28 UTC (Tue) by Kluge (guest, #2881) [Link]
Thanks for the link. I hadn't realized that "LGPLv2.1 gives you permission to relicense the code under any version of the GPL since GPLv2."
|
|||||||||||||