On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 07:08:34AM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
On 27.2.2012 01:29, Richard Fontana wrote:
>It may call into question the choice of the LGPL to begin with
>though. (That may not be an unreasonable guideline: for a new
>project, never use a license that is lengthier than the code you
>would be placing under it.)
Is this anti-Lesser GPL (pro pure-GPL) rant, or do you mean that
authors should use for shorter things
MIT/BSD/some-other-short-license?
It's not specific to LGPL, but more a comment on where relatively
simpler licensing may be more appropriate.
- RF