[CCs]

1. It is limiting: no static linking or you have to distribute re-linkable object files (LGPL section 4.d.)

2. It is long and complex license, not yet tested in court. Sometimes what constitutes a "derivative work" is not that clear.

3. Section 6 says all these can be changed anytime, potentially making it more restrictive (see GPL v3).

So from the business viewpoint it is better to find an alternative now than to potentially lose all the investment later.

[nitrogen]

1. It is limiting: no static linking or you have to distribute re-linkable object files (LGPL section 4.d.)

Static linking is fairly uncommon; it's more common to distribute the versions of DLLs you require on Windows, or use a package dependency on specific versions (or provide your own copies) of the system-provided libraries on Linux.

3. Section 6 says all these can be changed anytime, potentially making it more restrictive (see GPL v3).

Section 6 of LGPL3 does not say that; it says that you have the option of choosing a later version. Any code released under "GPLv2 or later" can still be used under GPL2.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

[thezoid]

The LGPL doesn't apply to network distributed software. Working with this software via an API (i.e. HTML) doesn't mean you need to do anything.

These kinds of licenses are put in place so people can't create proprietary extensions/patches and fracture a community. Now, I'm not saying this is better than MIT, but at least deters people from that.

1. will only matter if you are distributing binaries to clients/customers, which generally isn't the case with a SaaS product.

[CCs]

It does limit your future options.

GitHub started out as SaaS and now offers Enterprise product https://enterprise.github.com/

[nitrogen]

CppCMS also offers commercial licensing. Don't get me wrong, I love BSD and MIT software, and release some of my own code under permissive licenses, but it really bothers me when someone complains about the GPL or LGPL because they want to free-load off of others' hard work. The LGPL is a very commercial-friendly license!

[CCs]

I really like the fact that Linux is GPL, the license served the community well. For large, stand alone apps it makes sense.

On the other hand I try to avoid GPL/LGPL for components.

Here is a scenario:

1. Invest in developing your app based on CppCMS

2. It takes off, great - buy commercial license.

3. The next version of LGPL gets more restrictive, you're stuck with commercial license.

4. Artyom gets hired by Google/Apple, no time for CppCMS anymore; only the LGPL fork gets fixes from now on.

5. Throw away your investment (time and money), start learning something else - how cool is that?

[nitrogen]

That can happen with BSD software, too. Thr LGPL only gets more restrictive if the author releases a new version of their library that only permits the new LGPL version. Any project can change its licensing at any time, but with most open source licenses you retain your rights under the old license.

[CCs]

Yes, it can happen with BSD and MIT. But at least you can start a fork from there, if you really have to. Forking LGPL stays LGPL, with the limitations & all.

[interpol_p]

I like to release my libraries and tools under the BSD license, and I like to use others' permissively licensed libraries and tools in my own proprietary/commercial/closed applications.

[greyfade]

LGPL doesn't stop that. You can still distribute your own source under your preferred BSD license. And if you link dynamically, the LGPL can't impose its requirements on your code.

The LGPL only requires that binary distributions of the derivative work have source reasonably available and that the library can be switched for another version by an end-user.