Das Problem - und das ist es - das die FSF die Lizenzen kontrolliert wurde schon lange erkannt und z.B. 2001 diskutiert. Dazu sollte man mal den -meiner Meinung nach- sehr guten Artikel "Working Without Copyleft" bei O'Reilly lesen. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html
The Free Software Foundation controls the license. They can release a new version of the license, which then will automatically apply to our software. Although we do not expect the Free Software Foundation of making changes that deviate from the spirit of the current versions, they could make clarifications that are contrary to our intentions. For example, they may clarify that the result of aspect-oriented weaving is subject to the terms of the LGPL, whereas we had intended that it is not. Another concern is who will be in charge of the Free Software Foundation 10 years from now, or what happens if the Free Software Foundation is discontinued? [LGPL, section 13]
Dazu sollte man mal den -meiner Meinung nach- sehr guten Artikel
"Working Without Copyleft" bei O'Reilly lesen.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html
viel spass beim lesen
Unter "Why not LGPL?":
The Free Software Foundation controls the license. They can release a new version of the license, which then will automatically apply to our software. Although we do not expect the Free Software Foundation of making changes that deviate from the spirit of the current versions, they could make clarifications that are contrary to our intentions. For example, they may clarify that the result of aspect-oriented weaving is subject to the terms of the LGPL, whereas we had intended that it is not. Another concern is who will be in charge of the Free Software Foundation 10 years from now, or what happens if the Free Software Foundation is discontinued? [LGPL, section 13]