Re: Should LGPL-3.0 be an exception rather than a main license?

J Lovejoy

That is a really good point about the other lists, David.

(good to hear from you again on this list!!)


On Mar 26, 2015, at 2:36 PM, Wheeler, David A <dwheeler@...> wrote:

J Lovejoy:
GPL-3.0 WITH LGPL-3.0 (this feels a bit odd, but it would be accurate technically speaking…) [or]
I strongly believe “LGPL-3.0” is the correct answer. "LGPL-3.0" is much simpler, it's much clearer to non-lawyers, and referring to it as its own name matches historical practice.

In *practice* the LGPL is practically always referred to as its own license, not as a tweak to another license. Historically the LGPL was implemented as a separate license, and the “tweak” is not a small one either (exceptions are usually small). All other license list systems (such as Debian and Fedora's) treat it as a separate license, so there is strong historical precedence to treating it as its own license (if no other reason than backwards compatibility).

--- David A. Wheeler

Join to automatically receive all group messages.