[Libusbx-devel] Linux patches for 1.0.9 release

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 03/28/2012 02:29 PM, Pete Batard wrote:

<snip>

> Currently K is dual BSD/GPLv3 whereas we are still LGPLv2.
>
> Now, I personally would not have an issue with switching libusbx to GPL3, since I actually very much prefer it over any other license, even for a library. And for what is worth, that is also the stance of the FSF [1].
>
> If libusbx was my project alone, and if I wanted to remove dependency/integrate code that was GPLv3, I'd switch libusbx to GPLv3 in a heartbeat (since anybody can create a fork of an LGPL work and switch it to GPLv3 without asking) whilst leaving people who think they have a problem with the new license switch to dynamic linking. Despite how it looks, an LGPL -> GPLv3 doesn't exactly equate closing the door on anyone - it just means that some people may have to link dynamically instead of statically, which, no matter how you want to make it look, isn't exactly a big deal.
>
> Then again, that's just me, and I'm pretty sure we have some people here who would take a major objection on not being able to statically link against libusbx in their proprietary work (or work that can be relicensed into proprietary, which is pretty much the same), and who I'd expect to go up in arms at the idea of going GPLv3 (But if that's not the case, and if there's a majority here who would like to go with GPLv3, it will be my pleasure to oblige).

Depending on which lawyer you talk to it is not just statical linking which
is no longer allowed if you go from LGPL -> GPL, some even say that statical
linking is even forbidden by the LGPL.

Anyways lets not get into technicalities here, you are right some people (ie me)
have great objections going from LGPLv2+ (+ == or later) to GPLv3(+), or even
LGPLv3(+). Yes I'm also against moving to LGPLv3 since once a GPLv2+ app
links against an LGPLv3 library all other libraries most by licensed
under the (L)GPLv3 or a compatible license too, if one of the dependencies
of a program is GPLv2 (so without the or any later version language) then
the whole is not distributable. For more details on this see:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463248#c17

And also see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix

Long story short moving to (L)GPLv3 would seriously restrict libusb
applications in:
1) Which license they can use for their own program
2) Which licenses any other libraries they use may have, which
means they may not be able to use a library they want to use
because of license incompatibilities!

Note that since libusbk is licensed under the BSD too, there is
no problem using libusbk, or even merging it into a LGPLv2+ libusb

Regards,

Hans