AFAIK any modification to LGPLv3 code must be distributed under LGPLv3.
The difference with GPL is that you can include or link an unmodified LGPL work into a proprietary software and distribute the whole with a different license.
But if you modify the LGPL work itself and redistribute it (in binary or source form) you must use the LGPL license as it would obviously be a derivative work.
Even wikipedia confirms this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#Differences_from_the_GPL
Thus you should clarify the related paragraphs: using LGPL for the distribution of derivative works is not a suggestion but a requirement of the license.
Also, when I talked with a lawyer about a derivative work of a BSD software he explained me that I could distribute my modified version under AGPLv3 because I had introduced and modified several parts and my modification was under GPLv3 so the work as a whole was GPLv3, BUT I could not alter the copyright statements in the files I was copying verbatim from the original BSD project.
So my suggestion is to talk with a lawyer specialized in sofyware copyright about Redict before distributing Redis code under a different license.
@Shamar "using LGPL for the distribution of derivative works is not a suggestion but a requirement of the license"
This is wrong, there are ways to do this without creating a completely LGPL'd derivative work. But they're complicated and I didn't care to explain it on this page, which is made clear by the text.
Any example?
Don't need to explain (I know the topic quite in depth) but I'd really like to see an example of a derivative work of a LGPL covered software that was not under LGPL.
I'll be happy to analyze it with my reference lawyer. Obviously, the more example, the better...
