christopher.a.hoffman at gmail.com
Wed Mar 5 18:23:45 UTC 2008
The context is as follows:
dual-licensed GPL and MIT (X-11, it looks like).
2) Fluid is licensed under GPL.
3) jAria is a plugin for the jQuery library that is licensed (perhaps
mistakenly) under the Lesser GPL.
The question is, in order to be used by the Fluid project, does the
jAria plugin need to be changed to the GPL/MIT dual license?
David: If I've gotten something wrong, please correct me.
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 11:15 -0700, Christopher D. Coppola wrote:
> 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
> blog: coppola.rsmart.com
> 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
> > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > fluid-work mailing list
> > fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> > http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
More information about the fluid-work