[DannyBee]

"There are many organizations that cannot use any flavor of GPL, including LGPL, for legal reasons"

To be clear, there are no legal reasons I can think of that would ever prevent internal use of LGPL/GPL software.

You mean these companies (Apple, for example) have policies.

Policies like this often change because someone decides the cost vs risk tradeoff is worth it.

Changing a license because of bad policies of certain companies is not a great reason to change a license (in fact, it's, IMHO, an actively bad one).

You really should only change licenses if you find the license you chose does not suit the needs of your users (and policies are not really needs).

[philwelch]

I find that to be a strangely ideological response. Your prospective users' requirements are up to them to decide, not up to you. They're the ones who are going to decide whether or not to use your software.

[DannyBee]

?? Of course they are up to the users to decide, but policies and needs are different. I'm curious, how do you think policies like this change?

Most of the developers i've seen will happily sell you a commercial license if you don't like the software. After paying for it enough, most companies start to ask "well, actually, how risky is this, really?", and this is how policies change.

In any case, my other point stands - there are no actual legal reasons to not use LGPL/GPL software internally. It would have zero legal impact.

[philwelch]

If InfiniSQL was an established incumbent where the choice was between living with GPL and buying a commercial license I would agree with you, but it's a newcomer where the main choice is whether to use it at all.