Christopher D. Coppola
chris.coppola at rsmart.com
Wed Mar 5 18:15:25 UTC 2008
It's unfortunate that the range of OS licenses make it so difficult
for OS projects to work together so frequently... I missed the
beginning of this thread but I'd be willing to help if I better
understood the context. I'm fairly familiar with the different
licenses, compatibility, and some of the reasons why projects like
Sakai and Kuali (for example) chose the Apache/BSD style we did.
the rSmart group
Chris Coppola | 602.490.0472
On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Chris Hoffman wrote:
> 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
> do whatever you want with this code, including keeping any derivatives
> FOSS, or not, depending on your preference") and just releasing it
> 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
> 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
> I need a free (as in beer) open-source lawyer :)
> On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 11:41 -0500, Joseph Scheuhammer wrote:
>>> 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.
> fluid-work mailing list
> fluid-work at fluidproject.org
More information about the fluid-work