Topic: Well, are we changing to LGPL2.1+?
Edit: Added some requested clarifications.
This has been up for discussion before, but we never got around to do anything about it.
I think LGPL2.1+ is a good choice and would make OOFEM more commercially friendly, and there has more-or-less been a consensus on that already. I've been contacted on developing code from a commercial company, and LGPL would make things easier. I think with LGPL we could expect more payed work on OOFEM, which I think is of interest of most developers.
To be clear:
I, Mikael Öhman, agree that my existing and future contributions* may be licensed under: "LGPL2.1 or any later version"**
* Contributions sent to oofem.org or github.com/Micket/oofem
** By any newer version it means you would allow LGPL2.1 and newer versions of the license (at the option of users). (As we do right now but for GPL, see any header file). This addendum is a must, as we would otherwise risk becoming incompatible with other open source software.
Could the other developers please respond and post whether or not they agree with the statement above? (If you agree, just copy the line and post it).
You can read more about the license
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
where we can see the exact statement that will be in every file (like now)
This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
Lesser General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA