Which license to choose from LGPL v3 and Apache v2?

Question

Licenses for software and other works

I can't choose between LGPL v3 and Apache v2 for my project, please help. Perhaps you can recommend another one.
The project consists of 2 parts: PHP and C. The first part is that in php it uses a library under the GNU / LGPL license, the one in C is standard libraries (string, pcre, mysql).
What I would like from the license:
1) I would not like the name of the project to be changed if they copy / modify / distribute. If they make a fork, well, what can you do)
2) the project is free, but in the future it will suddenly be necessary to make an extended version from the existing one, but already closed (say, for sale).

Answer 1

IANAL, TINLA.
> Perhaps you will advise another.
There are at least three categories of free licenses according to the three degrees of copyleft : no copyleft (as in the Apache v2 license, as well as a lot of sloppy permissive licenses like Expat or the two-clause BSD license), weak copyleft (as in the GNU Lesser GPL), and strong copyleft (as in the GNU GPL).
You probably had reasons to narrow down your choices by excluding the third option from consideration, but you didn't state them. Meanwhile, it is the full-fledged AL, of course, that should be considered as the default option, if only because if you now refuse it and publish the work under, say, the Apache license, then there will be no reverse - free licenses are irrevocable.
> 1) the name of the project would not like to be changed if they copy / modify / distribute.
This condition can certainly be enforced by copyright, but there is every reason to believe that the program burdened with it will not be free at all.
The GNU GPLv3 , however, allows you to require reasonable retention of author attribution (Section 7b, "preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it" ) - and some understands these limits quite broadly, for example, Onlyoffice requires you to save its logo in the interface (“Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the License you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program” ), and the devil knows how much this fits into paragraph 7b, but so far no one has tried to challenge it, as far as I know.
> the project is free, but in the future it will suddenly be necessary to make an extended version from the existing one, but already [non-free]
. You should clarify how you use it there and whether your entire program does not fall under its copyleft through this.
Well, in essence, your desire to have the opportunity to enslave your developments sometime later, then if these are purely your developments, then what difference does it make what free license they have first - you cannot bind yourself with the terms of your own license. And a permissive license is your permission for other people to enslave your work.
It’s another matter if you have co-authors, but this needs to be decided with them - maybe they don’t want to take part in the development of future proprietaryism at all, or maybe vice versa - they agree to transfer exclusive copyrights to you (see how this is done in ownCloud ' e , for example). And feel free to ask for any small patches to be transferred to the public domain(or a state close to that, in the form of CC0 it is most convenient to do this).