> 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.
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.