Licensing under the LGPL

[mtauraso]

Would it be possible to release this library under the LGPL, the version of the GPL intended for library code?

I am asking because I would like to use as a dependency on a team that releases BSD licensed libraries for use in Astronomy. Certain interpretations of the GPL within my institution suggest that we would not be in compliance with the GPL if we were to include fitsio as a dependency in a BSD licensed libary.

Licensing this library as LGPL would solve this issue, and I think also allow a greater number of people similarly impacted to use it.

[esheldon]

I think you can use anything you want as as dependency, since it is not being included in your code.

But maybe @beckermr can comment

[beckermr]

I don't know @esheldon. Sorry.

[mtauraso]

@esheldon What you stated has been my understanding as well. My belief is that neither I nor my users are in violation if I license my software as BSD, but my software includes in source form (via pythonic import) some GPLv2 licensed software as well.

Sadly, my leadership does not agree. It is their belief that if they license software A under BSD/non-copyleft terms, B is licensed under GPLv2, and A does a python import of B then A's users will be in violation of the GPL with respect to software B. They do not want this to be the case for reasons of encouraging scientific collaboration. I understand that there was a major recent project in astronomy that had some legal trouble around this exact issue, and that is substantially a reason for their inaction. My leadership is also reluctant to speak to institutional lawyers for fear that those lawyers would forbid them from writing or using open source software all-together.

My leadership has pointed to sources like this: https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_2d_ed.html#concepts-and-license-mechanics-of-copyleft which makes the important distinction clear for the LGPL, but more arguable and fuzzy for GPLv2.

I requested LGPL because: I thought it might be an easy thing to change (or dual license) and such an action might alleviate the institutional fear on my side. I'm 100% certain changing to a BSD-style license (or dual licensing BSD) would entirely alleviate the fear I have described; however, I want to be sensitive to whatever reasons you may have had for choosing a copyleft license, hence my request for LGPL.

To be clear, I believe the institutional fear I've encountered to not be entirely rational, and I have made requests that my leadership reconsider the strict nature of their policy; however, I have not seen any indications that movement is likely from them at this time.

Given this context, are you totally opposed to adding an additional license to this package?

[esheldon]

OK, if you know how to do a double license please send a PR