I really liked the criteria that http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html outlines regarding lgpl or not. It

I really liked the criteria that http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html outlines regarding lgpl or not. It's the same criteria I use to decide whether to use a strong copyleft license or not: >The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library. >This is why we used the Lesser 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. The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline.