MIT 或 BSD-3 条款许可证也是选项，因为它们很短且内容很少，但对于大多数正常用途，Apache v2 已经取代了它们。
The LGPL license v2.1 is very long, has a "political" header and many think leaves rather too many things unclear (try reading it and thinking about how a lawyer could deliberately mis-read it).
Authors use it because they think they know what it means, that changes to the project require giving back, but usage does not. My view is that interpretation is optimistic and open to legal challenge. As such, many businesses avoid LGPL v2.1 licensed code, although it definitely does vary (some legal opinion says its OK, some doesn't).
The strange part is that when you ask many of the authors (like yourself) what they care about, its usually maximum adoption and acknowledgment, and the more "political" aspects of copy-left are less interesting. Thats why the Apache v2 license is a good default choice.
The MIT or BSD-3-clause licenses are also options as they are short and say very little, but for most normal uses the Apache v2 has superceded them.
I think the answer depends on the version. LGPL v3 is poison to most companies, because it's worded in such a way that they'd have to make any system that uses a component licensed under LGPL v3 to anyone who asked for it.
Whether you agree that even having the most proprietary source code in your possession would do you much good is another matter, but that's their concern.
发布评论
评论（4）
LGPL 许可证 v2.1 非常长，有一个“政治”标题，并且许多人认为有太多的事情不清楚（尝试阅读它并思考律师如何故意误读它）。
作者使用它是因为他们认为他们知道这意味着什么，即项目的更改需要回馈，但使用却不需要。我的观点是，解释是乐观的，并且可以接受法律挑战。因此，许多企业避免使用 LGPL v2.1 许可代码，尽管它确实有所不同（有些法律意见认为可以，有些则不然）。
奇怪的是，当你问许多作者（比如你自己）他们关心什么时，通常会得到最大程度的采用和认可，而 Copy-left 的更多“政治”方面就不那么有趣了。这就是为什么 Apache v2 许可证是一个很好的默认选择。
MIT 或 BSD-3 条款许可证也是选项，因为它们很短且内容很少，但对于大多数正常用途，Apache v2 已经取代了它们。
The LGPL license v2.1 is very long, has a "political" header and many think leaves rather too many things unclear (try reading it and thinking about how a lawyer could deliberately mis-read it).
Authors use it because they think they know what it means, that changes to the project require giving back, but usage does not. My view is that interpretation is optimistic and open to legal challenge. As such, many businesses avoid LGPL v2.1 licensed code, although it definitely does vary (some legal opinion says its OK, some doesn't).
The strange part is that when you ask many of the authors (like yourself) what they care about, its usually maximum adoption and acknowledgment, and the more "political" aspects of copy-left are less interesting. Thats why the Apache v2 license is a good default choice.
The MIT or BSD-3-clause licenses are also options as they are short and say very little, but for most normal uses the Apache v2 has superceded them.
我认为企业正在缓慢但坚定地接受 LGPL。也就是说，您可能想查看一些更宽松的许可证，例如 MIT、BSD 和 Apache 许可证 - http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_free_software_licence
I think the corporates are slowly but surely warming up to LGPL. That said, you might want to look at some more permissive licenses like the MIT, BSD and Apache ones - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_free_software_licence
我认为答案取决于版本。 LGPL v3 对大多数公司来说都是毒药，因为它的措辞方式使得他们必须制造任何使用 LGPL v3 下许可的组件的系统，以满足任何要求的人的要求。
你是否同意即使拥有最专有的源代码也会对你有很大好处是另一回事，但这是他们关心的问题。
I think the answer depends on the version. LGPL v3 is poison to most companies, because it's worded in such a way that they'd have to make any system that uses a component licensed under LGPL v3 to anyone who asked for it.
Whether you agree that even having the most proprietary source code in your possession would do you much good is another matter, but that's their concern.
如果您的解决方案有价值，无论如何您都会得到认可。看看 SQLite3 - 它是公共域，但部署最广泛的数据库。
If your solution is worthy you will get acknowledgement anyway. Look at SQLite3 - it's public domain, yet the most widely deployed database.