Andres Mejia mcitadel@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Niels Möller nisse@lysator.liu.se wrote:
At some point the license may be upgraded to LGPLv3. Or dual license LGPLv3 and GPLv2+. The latter, more complex, alternative would be helpful for you, right?
So long as XBMC can remain GPLv2, then it's ok.
However, I'm sure there are some projects out there that could benefit from an LGPLv2.1 crypto library. I looked around and so far have found one, libaacs which is itself LGPLv2.1. libaacs is used indirectly by XBMC, through libbluray.
I have to look at this more closely before upgrading the license (which I don't have any immediate plans of doing). I'm not sure, but I actually don't see any obvious problem with linking LGPLv2 and LGPLv3 code together.
The problem when linking GPLv2 and LGPLv3 code together is not that LGPLv3 doesn't allow it (after all, LGPL, any version, allows linking even with with proprietary code), but that GPLv2 requires that the *entire* work (except system libraries) can be distributed under GPLv2, with no additional restrictions, and some of the new conditions in (L)GPLv3 (probably the ones related to drm or patents) are additional restrictions.
And dual licensing as LGPLv3+ and GPLv2+ solves precisely that problem: GPLv2 programs (including tivoized GPLv2 programs) can still use the library under the GPLv2 conditions, while all other users of the library, in particular, all proprietary applications, must abide by the new conditions introduced in LGPLv3.
Regards, /Niels