jARIA license

Chris Hoffman christopher.a.hoffman at gmail.com
Wed Mar 5 18:01:46 UTC 2008


So does this mean that jAria can remain LGPL and be used with fluid,
which is strict GPL? Unless fluid is planning a proprietary fork...

Honestly, I don't see much difference between the dual license ("You can
do whatever you want with this code, including keeping any derivatives
FOSS, or not, depending on your preference") and just releasing it into
the public domain. The point of the GPL seems to be to keep free
software free; adding the second less restrictive license gives people a
choice not to do that, and kind of spits in the face of the GPL's
spirit.

I'm still willing to dual license. I'd just like to have a better
understanding of what the costs and benefits are, to myself and to the
community.

I need a free (as in beer) open-source lawyer :)

Chris

On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 11:41 -0500, Joseph Scheuhammer wrote:
> David,
> 
> > Maybe someone else on this list 
> > can explain the need?
> I can' t explain the need.  However, I believe the difference is that 
> with a MIT/GPL dual licence strategy, it's possible to create a 
> proprietary fork of jAria.  With LGPL, that would be impossible.
> 
> In terms of distribution, contribution, and linking, I don't believe 
> there is any practical difference between the licensing schemes.
> 




More information about the fluid-work mailing list