Why isn't there a Lesser Affero General Public License?

Question

Hey all!

First and foremost the opinions expressed about the licenses here are only mine and the information I have interpreted about the licenses so far. I could be wrong, but I hope not. Feel free to correct me otherwise. :-)

Over the years I've released perhaps about 10 projects via open-source, which to this date are all using the AGPL3 license. The choice to use this license is that these projects are all mostly jQuery plugins, and the few that aren't are PHP libraries/applications. For those who don't know, the AGPL3 is exactly the same as the GPL3 with the addition that distributing the licensed work over the internet is counted as conveying - which makes it an obvious GPL choice for javascript projects.

However as AGPL3 is nearly identical to the GPL3 it inherits the GPL3's restriction that the licensed work can only be used standalone or with another piece of work which is also licensed under the GPL3 (or AGPL3 or LGPL3) - with the exception of what is considered linking/based-on (but this exception is not the point).

Now the LGPL3 extends the GPL3 such that it no longer has that restriction. Therefore a LGPL3 licensed work can be used standalone, or with any other work regardless of that work's license.

This relaxed restriction is great for me, as it doesn't bother me about the licenses of the work which my work is combined with - as I have no need for such a strict restriction. Unfortunately though the LGPL3 extends the GPL3, and not the AGPL3; and as such there is no LAGPL3! :'(. Which is why I'm seriously bummed, confused and overall worn out by trying to figure out my options - hence why I've resorted to you guys!

As the LGPL3 is actually copyrighted by the FSF, it does not look like I could simply just copy and paste the LGPL3 and then modify the references to the GPL3 to reference the AGPL3 instead - as really this would accomplish my goal perfectly. But I doubt the legality of this due to the FSF copyright statement about the license's text.

Once such alternative I have found is this amendment to the AGPL3 which tries to accomplish the same thing as a LAGPL3 would - however I doubt the validity of it; as I doubt that anyone is able to sum up the entire LGPL3 license (being hundreds of lines long) into a single clear concise paragraph while keeping the strength and protection it would have originally... :/

So how come there is not a LAGPL3? Perhaps the LGPL3 make the concept of a LAGPL3 irrelevant through the terminology and definitions used but as far as I can tell it doesn't... If not, do I have any other alternatives such as amending the AGPL3 with my own clauses to accomplish this goal? Or could I just simply modify the LGPL3 as mentioned before to create my own LAGPL3 legally?

Thanks a bunch guys. I know this is not directly a programming question, but it covers programs, and there are already a bunch of GPL related questions here so I know the questions alright. Again thanks a bunch in advance :-)

I've already sent off an email to the FSF asking about this earlier today, but I'm still posting it here as my history with receiving email replies from them has been patchy.

Answer 1

Unless there's some instruction in the LGPL3 or on their website that bars you from modifying their license, then, by all means, you should modify the license. I imagine that when the LGPL3 was innovated, someone or some people saw how restrictive the GPL3 was and decided to modify it to allow more freedom. There's nothing wrong in taking the next step and creating a new, better license; just be sure to give credit where credit is due and share so that everyone can benefit from your improvements.