First, I should say I fully respect the choices you make regarding the licensing of Ajenti, which is a great product. If you don't wish Ajenti to be used without you getting a fee in some circumstances, that's fine.
Secondly, I'm not a lawer, so this is just my interpretation...
However, there are some fundamental problems with using the LGPL the way you intend it.
> "And of course, Ajenti remains licensed under LGPLv3 when in the context of FOSS project such as OpenEmbedded."
Yes and no...
- No, because you're trying to impose a further restriction on the LGPL. A derived "FOSS" product based on such conditions would not longer be open source (by the OSI definition, point 1: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."). It would also be a problem for FOSS projects that merly use it (unless it's an optional dependency perhaps).
- Yes, because it seems the couple of lines added at the top of the LGPL licence (in docs/LICENSE in the repository) might simply be void. Indeed, the LGPL is an extension of the GPL, and the GPL states (in section 7): "If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term."
Clearly, the latter isn't your intent (having a plain LGPL). For this reason, it would be better to have your own licence (which by the OSI definition will not be open source). Stating Ajenti is available under LGPL is confusing (both for users and authors apparently) and it certainly doesn't seem to have the desired effect.
Secondly, I'm not a lawer, so this is just my interpretation...
However, there are some fundamental problems with using the LGPL the way you intend it.
> "And of course, Ajenti remains licensed under LGPLv3 when in the context of FOSS project such as OpenEmbedded."
Yes and no...
- No, because you're trying to impose a further restriction on the LGPL. A derived "FOSS" product based on such conditions would not longer be open source (by the OSI definition, point 1: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.").
It would also be a problem for FOSS projects that merly use it (unless it's an optional dependency perhaps).
- Yes, because it seems the couple of lines added at the top of the LGPL licence (in docs/LICENSE in the repository) might simply be void. Indeed, the LGPL is an extension of the GPL, and the GPL states (in section 7): "If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term."
Clearly, the latter isn't your intent (having a plain LGPL). For this reason, it would be better to have your own licence (which by the OSI definition will not be open source). Stating Ajenti is available under LGPL is confusing (both for users and authors apparently) and it certainly doesn't seem to have the desired effect.