[F3nd0]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of these are solved problems.

LGPL should only pose a problem if you explicitly want your program to be used with non-free software. And then only if said non-free software doesn't give you a way to rebuild it yourself, should you want to modify the LGPL program. (So not a problem for open-core or public-source projects, either.)

If, for some reason, you insist on allowing static linking for all the projects, I think the MPL allows this. (People often seem to think of the LGPL, but it's not the only weak-copyleft licence around.)

Otherwise, when releasing your project under GPLv3+, you don't have to put blind faith into the FSF; you can designate a proxy which will decide whether the new version should be allowed for your project or not. This proxy can be yourself, or it can be a different organisation you choose to trust. Plus, I'm pretty sure the GPL allows you to make linking exceptions of your liking.

[Blikkentrekker]

> LGPL should only pose a problem if you explicitly want your program to be used with non-free software. And then only if said non-free software doesn't give you a way to rebuild it yourself, should you want to modify the LGPL program. (So not a problem for open-core or public-source projects, either.)

No, just if you want it to be used with anything that isn't that exact same GPL licence.

> Otherwise, when releasing your project under GPLv3+, you don't have to put blind faith into the FSF; you can designate a proxy which will decide whether the new version should be allowed for your project or not. This proxy can be yourself, or it can be a different organisation you choose to trust. Plus, I'm pretty sure the GPL allows you to make linking exceptions of your liking.

That's the same as just licencing under the GPLv3 and later retroactively deciding to also give the GPLv4 option when liking that licence. The issue is, what if you don't? Then your code can't be combined with any GPLv4 library.

The simple reality is that crates that have incompatible licences, and GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, cannot be used together in one distributed project without committing copyright infringement. The thing with MIT is that it's compatible with about every single licence out there.

[F3nd0]

> No, just if you want it to be used with anything that isn't that exact same GPL licence.

How so? The LGPL only demands the four freedoms for the program it covers, not for the entire project. As long as the user is free to use their own modified version of the LGPL program (by dynamic linking or being able to recompile) and share it with others, the licence should be satisfied, so even if your project as a whole is read-only or has a pushover licence, no?

> That's the same as just licencing under the GPLv3 and later retroactively deciding to also give the GPLv4 option when liking that licence.

It's practically the same if you own all of the code. Which, if you happen to run a public project which ends up accepting a lot of contributions, you won't.

> The issue is, what if you don't? Then your code can't be combined with any GPLv4 library.

Fair enough, but I don't think this problem can be solved. If you want any licensing changes to happen without explicit consent from every single contributor, you have to put a bit of blind trust in someone. My point was that in the case of the GPL, it doesn't have to be only the FSF.