[mystikal]

I think the restrictions on linking are the primary objection people have, and I guess also the patent stuff in v3. I would like to see a license that is weaker than LGPL (static linking allowed) and stronger than BSD. (For example, some projects are licensed as GPL+linking exception.) Basically, I'd like a license that said distributed modifications to the source code for this project must be open, but everything else is a free-for-all.

[geofft]

I think you want GPL + classpath exception:

Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.

As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.

There's no distinction about static vs. dynamic linking, and no specific requirement like the LGPL to be able to relink the application (though the GPL's general requirement to produce useful source + build scripts for the library still applies).

[mystikal]

I'm also fine if you pull out bits of my code and use them in your codebase, just as long as you release the changes to those bits. Probably function-level granularity for separating mine from yours would work, and I don't expect you to write wrappers. Also automatically doing stuff with my code is fine.

[geofft]

I'd expect that counts as modifying your library (to remove all but the lines of code I want to use), at which point I can avail myself of the classpath exception by being GPL-compliant for just those lines of code -- offering the complete corresponding source in the preferred form of modification.

[mystikal]

I think you still have to ship it in a separate tree / binary, but I'm not sure. I don't think the exception means you can put my GPL function in your proprietary code and call it as long as you reveal the changes to my function. But I'm willing to settle for "who knows, really" :)

I worked a bit on Classpath but that was a long time ago. There are like, lots and lots of emails + irc logs to dig up about that little exception and what it means. Not having things tested in court is a problem, and the lack of funding for FSF lawyers is another.

[drdaeman]

Possibly, LGPL or MPL?

You can link it with whatever proprietary code you want, but keep the LGPL library free. As long as you don't want to link LGPL-licensed library statically, it's quite simple to comply with license terms.

There's also MPL (v2), that's weaker than LGPL, roughly operates on file-level (rather than LGPL's library-level).

[gillianseed]

I've seen projects use LGPL with a added static linking exception (as in allowing it).

[mystikal]

I'm fine with static linking, it's even fine if you want to #include my source code. I never paid much attention to the MPL, will see, thanks.