Yes, writing a new license and just use that would be the better solution, but its in direct contrast to how companies handle software license. You don't generally take software and then replace the license with your own and pretend that the original license don't exist, even if the license do permits it.
As for the GPL ongoing obligation, I am not sure how many picks the source-on-request method or the subgroup of those that also get a request. Its a fix-it-later issue compared to the more immediate issue of "fuck" appearing in the product.
Just to be a bit clearer on my own opinion, a good company should have no issue of using both licenses. Writing code is costly and time consuming, and a good company should focus on core aspects rather than reinventing programming infrastructure. If the license is compatible with the business model then use it. If its not, ask the author for a exception. If all fails, then and only then waste developers time. In video games I often see software licenses in game credits, and many game studios will use any and all licenses that isn't in direct conflict with the business model, and I assume its because that market is too competitive to not do so. Including LGPLv3 source code on the disk (or offering) isn't a big deal compared to a game shipping a month or two later.
> You don't generally take software and then replace the license with your own and pretend that the original license don't exist, even if the license do permits it.
Sure, it's a slightly unusual thing to do. But I think it's less unusual than what you have to do for GPL compliance.
> As for the GPL ongoing obligation, I am not sure how many picks the source-on-request method or the subgroup of those that also get a request. Its a fix-it-later issue compared to the more immediate issue of "fuck" appearing in the product.
Legal should not be treating it as a fix-it-later issue if they're caring about licensing at all. Distributing GPL code not in compliance with the license is exactly as bad as distributing code you have no license to at all (and opens you up to exactly the same liability, given that the damages for copyright infringement are statutory).
Don't get me wrong, I support the GPL, but license compliance is important and nontrivial. Note that the LGPL is a very different license from the GPL, and much easier to comply with.
As for the GPL ongoing obligation, I am not sure how many picks the source-on-request method or the subgroup of those that also get a request. Its a fix-it-later issue compared to the more immediate issue of "fuck" appearing in the product.
Just to be a bit clearer on my own opinion, a good company should have no issue of using both licenses. Writing code is costly and time consuming, and a good company should focus on core aspects rather than reinventing programming infrastructure. If the license is compatible with the business model then use it. If its not, ask the author for a exception. If all fails, then and only then waste developers time. In video games I often see software licenses in game credits, and many game studios will use any and all licenses that isn't in direct conflict with the business model, and I assume its because that market is too competitive to not do so. Including LGPLv3 source code on the disk (or offering) isn't a big deal compared to a game shipping a month or two later.