Adding the GPL to Fluid license? - requesting input
John Norman
john at caret.cam.ac.uk
Sat Jan 12 17:11:32 UTC 2008
[Warning] rambling stream of consciousness post.
I think substituting LGPL for BSD is a red herring based on a
misunderstanding of who we are trying to please.
I think ECL (or Apache) + BSD dual licensing is fine.
- If a GPL project just wants to incorporate code and continue to
release under GPL, they can take code under the BSD license
- If they then create a derived work with that code and refuse to
return it to Fluid under the BSD license, then we are in no different
position to a commercial company that takes the code under BSD and
improves it, but declines to contribute the improvements back.
Our motivation in considering this option is *maximum dissemination*
of Fluid work and the perception that _some_ projects may reject code
if it is not released under a viral license (in a similar way to Sakai
tending to reject GPL code)
- A project that takes this attitude is unlikely to contribute back
using BSD if they make developments so any development would be a GPL
fork. What is wrong with that? Well the worst thing would be if they
make valuable improvements that we cannot take AND we can't use their
code in an ECL distribution. But this is no different to a commercial
organisation taking the code 'private' and our license choice
explicitly tolerates that.
So we have NOT chosen a licensing strategy designed to prevent forks
(we rely on enlightened self interest for that). Accordingly I don't
think we should analyse this decision in terms of preventing a GPL fork.
It seems that the choice is
(a) stick to the 'liberal' line and say our code is available under a
completely flexible license (BSD) and commercial and GPL forks are not
forbidden. Go do what you like.
(b) try to make it easier for the more religious of projects to take
the code under GPL and recognise that they are just like commercial
companies from our perspective - what they put back is at their
discretion and any development they do is likely to create a GPL fork,
in the same way as we recognise that many companies will be tempted to
create a 'private' fork.
There is no easy middle ground. Either you don't care what happens to
your code after people take it or you do. Sticking to 'we don't care
what happens to the code' and adding in 'we want as many as possible
to take it' suggests that if and when someone indicates they would
only take it under GPL, we let them. But should we encourage this or
make it equally easy as taking it under BSD?
This leaves me with; we don't publicise GPL availability, but if
someone insists on GPL or nothing, we could allow it and recognise it
is likely to be a one way flow. I am against encouraging GPL uptake
and would prefer we encourage GPL projects to take it under BSD and
return improvements under BSD. I am less clear on exactly how to
implement that policy.
Does that make sense to anyone else. I'm probably missing a key point
somewhere.
John
On 10 Jan 2008, at 23:53, Christopher D. Coppola wrote:
> Barnaby,
>
> I'm not sure I understand how the dual ECL 2.0 and LGPL 2.1
> situation would work. As you clearly articulated, Fluid's IP isn't a
> discrete library. The advantage of the LGPL over the GPL in a
> situation like this is that we can be more clear about what
> constitutes a derivative work. If something's licensed under LGPL
> and it's not a discrete library then the waters are muddy and you
> end up in the same fuzzy situation you'd be in if the work was
> licensed under GPL. Right?
>
> /chris
> --
> the rSmart group
> Chris Coppola | 602.490.0472
> blog: coppola.rsmart.com
>
> On Jan 10, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Barnaby Gibson wrote:
>
>>
>> I spoke a bit to Sheila this morning, but I thought that I would
>> chime into this forum as well.
>>
>> As Lennard pointed out in one of his messages, the folks who are
>> asking for the software to be licensed under the GPL are concerned
>> that they will contribute to the code base and then later discover
>> that a third party is distributing a modified version of the
>> software without contributing its modifications back to the
>> community. But if the software is also licensed under the BSD and/
>> or the ECL, there is not much that prevents a third party from
>> taking the software under the BSD or ECL and distributing a
>> modified version without contributing its modifications to the
>> community, potentially creating a proprietary fork if people find
>> the modifications to be sufficiently compelling that they start to
>> insist on using the modified distribution. This is the "proprietary
>> fork" that foks in the GPL camp worry about.
>>
>> Likewise, under a dual BSD/ECL licensing scheme, there is nothing
>> that prevents a third party from taking the software under the BSD
>> and distributing a modified version under the GPL that creates a
>> GPL-only fork, again if people find the GPL-only modificiations to
>> be sufficiently compelling that they insist on the distribution
>> that has the GPL-only modifications, rather than on the Fluid
>> distribution that is dual licensed. The problem with this GPL-only
>> fork is that in many cases it discourages investment in the
>> software by commercial third party developers.
>>
>> I'm not sure in these circumstances that there is a solution that
>> will make everyone happy, in part because the UI- and code- (as
>> versus library) centric nature of the Fluid project makes it hard
>> to license it exclusively under the LGPL, which is one of the more
>> common "compromises" between copyleft and non-copyleft open source
>> licenses. If Fluid were more akin to a library or had an API, or
>> if it provided discrete functionality, it would be easier for Sakai
>> to come to the conclusion that including it in the distribution
>> under LGPL is consistent with the non-proprietary/non-copyleft
>> "agnostic" nature of the Sakai project, and I would probaby think
>> that using only the LGPL would be a possible compromise solution.
>> But given the nature of Fluid it's hard to recommend that they
>> adopt the LGPL exclusively.
>>
>> If they really are not willing to license Fluid solely under the
>> ECL, they should dual license Fluid under the ECL 2.0 and the LGPL
>> 2.1 and drop the BSD. The BSD does nothing to protect against a
>> proprietary fork, and it does nothing to protect against a GPL-only
>> fork. I still think a LGPL fork would be a "bad thing," but at
>> least if there is a LGPL fork, there is some chance that folks will
>> feel comfortable using portions of the LGPL code.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Barnaby
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> D. Barnaby Gibson
>> General Counsel, Treasurer & Secretary
>> Ithaka Harbors, Inc.
>> 151 East 61st Street, New York, NY 10065
>> (212) 500-2342 (work)
>> (212) 500-2366 (fax)
>> barnaby.gibson at ithaka.org
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Lennard Fuller [mailto:lfuller at unicon.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:41 PM
>> To: markjnorton at earthlink.net
>> Cc: Barnaby Gibson; Christopher D. Coppola; licensing at collab.sakaiproject.org
>> ; fluid-work at fluidproject.org
>> Subject: Re: Adding the GPL to Fluid license? - requesting input
>>
>> Just to further clarify the difference between GPL and LGPL. LGPL
>> does using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary
>> programs. For fluid this would mean that large companies could
>> then make use of fluid to build their products. LGPL would also
>> mean that if a commercial company were to enhance fluid in any way,
>> those changes would have to be made open and available to the
>> world. A full GPL license only allows non proprietary usage. In
>> short, a full GPL limits your audience... and for software like
>> fluid, in my opinion, it would also limit the good such a product
>> could do.
>>
>> Again, my vote would be to not use either LGPL or GPL, but if one
>> must be used, LGPL would seem to be the better course.
>>
>> -Lennard Fuller
>>
>> Lennard Fuller wrote:
>>>
>>> So long as the customizations are also open and available there
>>> shouldn't be any problems. GPL does not require that the changes be
>>> committed back into the project's root. It is just that all of the
>>> modifications must be open and available. Problems really start
>>> when
>>> GPL code is included into a proprietary application... there is a
>>> clause
>>> in the license that then requires the entire application be made
>>> open
>>> and available. If the code being used is LGPL, and is used
>>> properly,
>>> then by and large the 'viral' type restriction is removed. IF the
>>> LGPL
>>> software is modified in any way, it does need to be open and
>>> available.
>>>
>>> Mark Norton wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had a look at Moodlerooms Terms of Service. Had trouble
>>>> accessing
>>>> the site, so used Google Cache:
>>>> http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:mElfwQm2ZYoJ:www.moodlerooms.com/tos.html+Moodlerooms+license&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesingly, there is VERY little mention of Moodle in the TOS.
>>>> This
>>>> line is interesting, however:
>>>>
>>>> "Moodlerooms provides expertise and energy to train your
>>>> instructors,
>>>> customize Moodle to your specifications, host Moodle at an
>>>> enterprise-level stemming from superior hardware and software
>>>> engineering, connect your legacy information systems to Moodle
>>>> through
>>>> integrations, and convert your courses so that they work in
>>>> Moodle."
>>>>
>>>> Customize Moodle, eh? Sounds like thin ice to me.
>>>>
>>>> - Mark
>>>>
>>>> Lennard Fuller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> MoodleRooms source code is open and available. They also provide
>>>>> services such as corporate hosting. It is not that GPL
>>>>> precludes any
>>>>> commercial usage... it is just that the license places some severe
>>>>> limitations on how it can be used. Personally, I am not for
>>>>> adding
>>>>> the GPL license. If we absolutely HAVE to have some form of the
>>>>> GPL,
>>>>> please consider using the LGPL.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mara Hancock wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is very interesting. I agree with Mark that this seems
>>>>>> like an
>>>>>> attempt to avoid the inevitable conflict between the licenses. I
>>>>>> fear that it make the management of the code contributions so
>>>>>> complicated that it will need a full time code gatekeeper. I came
>>>>>> into the conversation late yesterday, but I thought that Colin
>>>>>> had
>>>>>> some very concrete examples of why he thought this might be a
>>>>>> good
>>>>>> thing. It would be good to hear those. Right now I am on the -1
>>>>>> track but willing to be convinced otherwise. I would love to know
>>>>>> the answer to the question about Moodle Rooms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, Mara
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 10, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Lennard Fuller wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:sheila.crossey at utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> fluid-work mailing list
>>>>>>>>> fluid-work at fluidproject.org
>>>>>>>>> http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 fluidproject.org
>>>>>>>> http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> fluid-work mailing list
>>>>>>> fluid-work at fluidproject.org
>>>>>>> http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> fluid-work mailing list
>>> fluid-work at fluidproject.org
>>> http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list
> fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20080112/e778e1ac/attachment.htm>
More information about the fluid-work
mailing list