On Saturday 04 September 2010 00:39:05 Florian Goujeon wrote:
On 09/04/2010 03:50 AM, OvermindDL1 wrote:
LGPL is still too restrictive for single binary distributions, Clang is under an MIT style license.
I know that and I agree with you. I think I'll change Scalpel's license to a BSD-like license sooner or later. I temporarily keep it under LGPL in order to prevent a hypothetical proprietary fork. I guess you may find it overcautious, not to say pointless, but I spent a lot of time working on this project and it's not easy to make such a decision.
You could always release under LGPL with a static link exception. I work for a commercial software company, and we use LGPL all of the time. Dynamic linking is not an unnecessary restriction for most users. The static link exception is nice for those that want to release a single binary though. Bottom line is that you've clearly shown that you're amenable to changing the license to be more permissive in the future, and it's really counterproductive to nitpick about your choice of license terms. It is, after all, your blood and sweat that brought this project to fruition.