I used LGPL for reasons very like yours, for 65Org16. I wanted to be sure that improvements and bugfixes would not be locked away(*), but I didn't want to prevent anyone from using the core and integrating it with something else which was closed-source or proprietary.
(I was able to choose the LGPL because Arlet kindly released/relicensed his core with that license.)
(I chose LGPL 2 because I'm unsure of the full implications of the change to version 3 and haven't put in the effort to understand the question. I realise this is a sin.)
As the original author, for as long as there are no other contributors, you are free to change your mind and re-license, or release with multiple licenses, or to license subsequent versions with different licenses or to issue specific licenses to specific parties. In all cases, you retain copyright of your work, until you assign it to someone else.
Cheers
Ed
(*) A user of software, who has the source, is surely able to make improvements and bugfixes, and keep them private. The GPL and LGPL are concerned about people who re-distribute software, having got the source for free, made changes, but who intend not to pass the source on. The users of that redistributed software then lose out on the benefits of the source. Even the original authors don't see the enhanced sources. This is the problem with MIT and BSD licenses.
|