28
Why isn't there an LGPL version for AGPL? (lemmy.zip)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

There are different versions of the GPL license, ranging from the lightweight copyleft LGPL to the strong copyleft AGPL.

But if the LGPL is a lighter copyleft version of the GPL, why isn't there a lighter copyleft version of the AGPL?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Imagine a game difficulty selection level:

easy <> normal <> hard

Easy is easier than normal. Why don't we have an easier version of hard? That's the kind of question you ask.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Nah, you can have a license that says you get a cupcake and another license that says you need to give up your first-born.
    And then you can mush those licenses to say that you need to give up your first-born, but you get a cupcake in return.

    Unless the specific license terms contradict, this is totally possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    The thing is this isn't a single spectrum. The requirement the AGPL adds to the GPL could be applied to the LGPL without including the requirements added by the GPL.

    To take the video game analogy, it's more like asking why you can't set the brightness above 50% if the graphics quality is set to ultra.

    The answer here is that the FSF likely doesn't see the utility in such a license.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent