it is just because I am talking about Commercial Open Source that I advice not to use LGPL for business, unless you are willing to get other vendors to use it in their proprietary solutions. By the way, I cited Richard’s article because it makes clear that if your “library” has unique features you better consider using the GPL:

This is why we used the Library GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another–no problem for them, only for us.

However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU Readline, that’s a horse of a different color.

About the “old” Objectweb policy, I actually notice that all the projects, but one, were distributed under the Lesser GPL. Curiously enough the one missing, sinc4j, being distributed under the GPL license allowed Funambol to fully take advantage of a business model based on double-licensing.

By the way if you never got the chance to read it before, I would recommend you to have a look at “Why you shouldn’t use the Library GPL for your next library“. It is an old document but it still makes sense.

Spago, SpagoBI and also Spago4q are all distributed under LGPL, and you also mention that LGPL was chosen in order to let it accepted by a consortium, am I right? Could you tell us more about it?

3) double licensing doesn’t make sense to SpagoWorld. It could makes sense in other business models, but in many situations it’s just a little differentiator from proprietary model

I don’t know what business model suites SpagoWorld, but it can’t be true that double-licensing be often meaningless. If this was the case OS firms adopting the double-licensing wouldn’t sell it, right?