BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business

[Patrik Stridvall]

> > > if you have to give out an unlimited, royalty free license to your
> > > work, I think it's not unfair to say that you have given up your
> > > copyright protection.  As the copyright holder, it's true that you
> > > can relicense it to suit other licenses, but it's not clear to me
> > > that you can clearly make a copyright infringment case if there is
> > > an LGPLed copy in the public.
> > Well if somebody uses my work in a way either not permitted by LGPL
> > or explicitly permited by me through some other license I can't see
> > why I can't sue.
> 
> But the point I'm trying to make is that I can be in violation of
> your RELICENSE.  I can make a claim that YOUR work is 
> covered by the *GPL, so that your RElicense to me doesn't apply.  
> If this holds, then my original statement that you gave up your
> copyright protection holds.

I'm not sure I follow you.

Yes, if my work is covered by *GPL, you can ALWAYS use it if you
follow the conditions in the license.

However if you for some reason can't or won't, you can ask
me for a relicense. If you don't I can sue you for violating the *GPL.
If you do, you have to follow the conditions of the new license otherwise
I can sue you.

Of course, if you later decide that oh well following the *GPL
is not that bad in comparison after all, it is possible and
even probably that I can't sue you for breaking the relicense
as long as you follow the *GPL.

The point it that you must show that you follow either *GPL
or my relicense in order to not be a copyright infringer.
You don't have to follow both though.