Adding the GPL to Fluid license? - requesting input

Lennard Fuller lfuller at
Thu Jan 10 16:00:53 UTC 2008

Many of my clients specifically ask me to avoid GPL, some of that set of 
clients will accept an LGPL if no other reasonable alternative exists.  
Oddly enough... over the last 7 years I have yet to have had a single 
client that has demanded the use of GPL exclusively.

-Lennard Fuller

Mark Norton wrote:
> This sounds like an attempt to please all of the people all of the time. 
> The fact is there are some very different philosophies in the open 
> source community, primarily divided between those who favor commercial 
> use and those who don't. If Fluid is licensed (as it currently is) under 
> ECL 2.0, then the Sakai community will likely be satisfied, since it has 
> a more inclusive view of open source use. However, I suspect that those 
> in other camps will not be satisfied with a GPL license if it is also 
> licensed under ECL. What's the point, really?
> Who specifically needs a GPL license for Fluid?
> - Mark Norton
> Sheila Crossey wrote:
>> All,
>> We are considering adding the GPL to the Fluid licensing scheme and 
>> are seeking input on the ramifications this would have.
>> Refresher:
>> Fluid is currently dual-licensed under ECL 2.0 and BSD licenses. The 
>> BSD license was selected to enable combining with GPL-licensed code 
>> (as BSD is deemed to be GPL compatible whereas ECL 2.0 is not) and to 
>> avoid forking of the code (BSD is not copyleft so code licensed under 
>> BSD can be merged into non-copyleft code).
>> Issue:
>> Some communities who license their code under the GPL will not adopt 
>> any third party code unless it also is licensed under GPL; that is, a 
>> GPL-compatible license such as BSD does not solve the problem (even 
>> though technically, it should).
>> Proposed solution:
>> Tri-license Fluid under ECL 2.0, BSD, and GPL V2.
>> GPL V3 was considered as an option, but rejected as there are some 
>> parties who have licensed a considerable body of code under GPL V2 and 
>> who will not move to GPL V3 as they have various objections to the new 
>> terms. We can apply GPL V2 in a way that will permit the option of 
>> applying GPL V3 to those who wish to.
>> Risk/Benefit:
>> The benefit would be potentially increased penetration and usage of 
>> Fluid code.
>> One risk is that GPL communities could license their modifications to 
>> Fluid code solely under GPL thus creating a separate fork. The chances 
>> of this happening could be reduced by publicizing this negative impact 
>> of single-licensing under the GPL.
>> A second risk is that communities who are concerned about the effects 
>> of GPL’s copyleft terms might be uncomfortable adopting Fluid if the 
>> GPL is one of the licenses which apply to it. We need input from Sakai 
>> regarding this.
>> As there may be other risks arising from the increased complexity of 
>> tri-licensing and adding copyleft into the mix, I encourage anyone 
>> with expertise, or access to it, to weigh in on this.
>> Sheila
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Sheila Crossey
>> Senior Project Coordinator
>> Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
>> Faculty of Information Studies
>> University of Toronto
>> voice: (416) 946-7820
>> fax: (416) 971-2896
>> email: sheila.crossey at <mailto:sheila.crossey at>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> fluid-work mailing list
>> fluid-work at
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
>> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.0/1216 - Release Date: 1/9/2008 10:16 AM
> _______________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list
> fluid-work at

More information about the fluid-work mailing list