I am not married to the license. I noticed several complaints, so I am going to reconsider it. :)
So did any of them actually make specific complaints (e.g. "I can't link this to with my already-developed proprietary project because your code is GPL. LGPL would work great."), or is it just the usual whiners who complain about anything GPL?
Then you'd be even more bummed to discover that even if halayli changes the license to BSD (which I hope he does not), you won't be able to use it because it is x86/AMD64 only.
What's your objective? IANAL, but here's how I see it:
If it is "I want as many people to use it, regardless if I get anything in return, even credit, or even get to know about it" - then you should do BSD/MIT/Public domain. It makes sense for some projects, especially if they want to reach critical user mass, e.g. zlib, png, vorbis (the common theme I find that makes sense for this is "network effect")
If it is "I want people to be able to use it, but they have to give back to the community if they improve it", then LGPL is the right fit.
If it is "I want people who use it to share their use of it as a free product itself", use GPL (if you just want whoever distributes a binary to also distribute the source), or AGPL (if you want whoever makes the binary available for use, e.g. in a web server).
As a consumer, of course I like all libraries BSD - I never have to answer to everyone, everything is available to me for free, I can sell it, etc. That's the spoiled brat in me talking.
But as a mature member of the free software community, I ask everyone to consider GPL or even AGPL for code they release, unless they have a very good reason to do otherwise. Why would you want to support someone who does not support you back?
Specifically, I've so far only submitted patches (and signed over copyright when I did and the project requested), but if I ever release a full project on my own, it will definitely be GPL/AGPL with possibility for a proprietary license.
If GCC, which serves us all, had been BSD, it would probably not have been half as good as it is today: e.g. I suspect Sony would not have contributed back at all, IBM and Intel wouldn't have contributed as much, as many others. Furthermore, if GCC was AGPL, coverity would also have been free software.
ffmpeg/libav is the best media decoding library bar none (If you need control, the closest contender, Microsoft's stack, is not even close, and everyone else is much farther away). Many projects are violating ffmpeg terms left and right, but enough users respect the LGPL/GPL to make contributions significant, and everyone enjoys that. By the amount of projects that violate the terms, I suspect that a BSD license on ffmpeg would have been detrimental to the project.
Licensing something (A|L|)GPL still allows you to negotiate specific licenses for some compensation, e.g. patent protection from the user, or some payment.
We really need a "free software library/app store", where people can get compensated for their project in return for giving it under a non-GPLish license by a user who has problems with the GPL. If they have a problem with the GPL, they're obviously profiting of it, and they should expect to give something back (even if it is just a patent pledge or something else which does not cost money out of pocket)
How does dual licensing work when other people contribute code to the GPL codebase? Either they should still own their contributions and you won't be able to sell them as non-GPL, or you need to make them sign some extra contract to assign their copyright to you... Or am I missing something?
They have to sign copyright over (or otherwise license their contributions to you in a way you can relicense). Many projects require you to sign over copyright if you contribute - e.g. Cygwin, and IIRC ZeroMQ too.
Others just require you to let THEM relicense it, e.g. web2py.
And other projects (mostly those that consider closing source at some point) just refuse contributions.
You could always offer to pay for a more suitable license on the software. Also, half the comments on this library are whining about the license. Nice content guys.
I don't have a budget, and it's not worth enough to fight legal and/or someone with a budget for this. I don't mean to complain about the license — when I write open source code, I use the GPL too. That being said, I maintain a network file daemon for work and would be interested in using this library to simplify the code (assuming it benchmarks and tests OK). That's all.
If you don't distribute said demon, you're ok under the GPL. (You might not be under the AGPL, but this project is GPL).
Either way, write a polite note to the powers that be: "Our stance with respect to GPL software is causing us an estimated $15000/year cost in maintenance and development on project X". (Substitute $15000/year for a reasonable, justifiable estimate).
Your lawyers don't have to justify their GPL stance today. Make them. They'll probably win at the end in this company ... but change can arrive if enough people do this.
One doesn't follow from the other. It's his software and he should pick the license that best fits his objectives.
If he reconsiders and then decides that GPL indeed is the best license for his use case, that's great; but it's possible his original choice was suboptimal.
Edit: But I agree with Parfe - it could be kept GPL and dual licensed for $$, best of both worlds.
