LGPL or BSD-Style License for Media Codecs?

Josh Coalson asks: "I am the author of FLAC, an open-source lossless audio codec. The core of the project is a reference encoder/decoder library currently licensed under the LGPL. As the format grows more popular I am being been approached by third parties about implementation in proprietary hardware systems. This is natural and I don't have anything against it, but several people are voicing concerns that the LGPL is too strict for use in embedded systems. I want the codec to remain Free, but then again, wide adoption of a format makes it more useful to all users."

"More specifically, the nature of many embedded systems force them to be bound by the stringent requirements of Section 6 the LGPL. In some cases, dynamic linkage is not possible, ruling out 6(b), or causing the terms of the FLAC library to come into conflict with other proprietary libraries. In other cases, it simply is not possible to provide an environment, according to 6(a), where the user can re-link with a different copy of the library.

What are my options? I could stick to my guns, which might limit the adoption of the format, or change the license. I know Vorbis uses the BSD license, but I feel strongly about modifications that are useful for others going back into the free code base. Perhaps there is another middle-ground license that could preserve the Freedom of the code in these cases? Or maybe I am not interpreting the verbiage of the LGPL correctly? Can't I have my cake and eat it too?"

Comments

This is why you should never GPL anything(or LGPL)

[greggman]

FreeBSD allows even proprietary (closed-source) developers to contribute to open-source projects and still use the results in their own work/projects. This is a win for everybody.

If the code is GPLed only other GPL programmers can use and contribute to it.

FreeBSD is the "lets all share and co-operate as much as possible" license

GPL is the "lets all try to stop/ban proprietary software" type of license. If you don't believe me, go read the GNU Manifesto and all the other literature on www.gnu.org. GPL is NOT about SHARING. You can share without GPL.

dual-license

[h4x0r-3l337]

I find it vaguely amusing that you chose to license FLAC under the LGPL, but do not seem to be aware of the possibility of dual-licensing. This just goes to prove my theory that most people license software under (L)GPL because it's the "cool" thing to do, not because they actually believe in the principles for which the GPL stands, let alone understand the consequences of their choice.