Update from LGPL 2.0 to 2.1 (or Apache)

[danyeaw]

This issue goes along with gaphor/gaphor#61. GitHub supports displaying the license on the repository overview. It only supports licenses from choose a license, which includes the LGPL 2.1, but not 2.0.

The main changes are rewording Library to Lesser, and adding another option for using a shared library mechanism:
b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the
Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a
copy of the library already present on the user's computer system,
rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2)
will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if
the user installs one, as long as the modified version is
interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.

We are also considering moving to Apache instead of the LGPL, the
summary of differences are:

• LGPL requires that derivative works must be licensed using the LGPL as well
• LGPL requires that source code must be disclosed with distribution, Apache does not
• Apache requires an express grant of patent rights for contributions, LGPL v2.1 does not (v3 does)
• Apache is more compatible, so we could include MIT or BSD software in our project, but we need to ensure that there is no other LGPL libraries that exist within the current software.

Any other thoughts on upgrading to a newer version of the LGPL or to Apache?

• @danyeaw
• @amolenaar
• @wrobell
• @jlstevens - verified only removed whitespace and changed width of text
• @adrianboguszewski - no commits remain in current code base
• @franzlst

[franzlst]

You have my permission :-)

I vote for Apache 2.0, as it seems to be "more compatible" to the Eclipse Public License (EPL).

[amolenaar]

Let's use Apache 2.0. It's more deliberate and can lower the barrier for adoption of this library.

[amolenaar]

I created a small PR (#40).

[danyeaw]

@wrobell waiting on you, any concerns with changing the license?

[wrobell]

My preference is GPL to be honest.

However, my involvement in the project is basically non-existent at the moment. Therefore, I would like to transfer ownership of copyright of all my past and future changes to @amolenaar. Whatever he decides then.

I believe this is valid in my jurisdiction. :)

[amolenaar]

I think #40 closes this issue.