jARIA license

Christopher D. Coppola chris.coppola at rsmart.com
Wed Mar 5 19:08:00 UTC 2008


I don't see any flaws in your assessment, though INAL either. LGPL  
libraries can certainly be compatible with Fluid's licensing  
practices, but I wouldn't just use LGPL code without some analysis of  
how you're using it. In the Sakai / Kuali projects there are a number  
of licenses that we've become comfortable with and permit the use of  
with some simple instructions on how to document the use, and make  
sure the appropriate license and/or attribution are documented. With  
LGPL we go into a bit more depth of discussion on how the library is  
used so we can assess whether our use falls into Section 6 of the LGPL  
- "A work that uses the library."

It's a bit more complicated for you because you have to make sure that  
your use of LGPL is compatible with both of your outbound license  
choices... BSD and ECL 2.0.

We generally have a brief conversation with an attorney to make sure  
we're using it in a way that's compatible. A few questions almost  
always come up... Is the Fluid project modifying the library (jAria)?  
Or using it as is? If you are modifying it, are you doing it through  
the jAria project and then essentially using it "as is" or is it  
uniquely modified?

the rSmart group
Chris Coppola | 602.490.0472
blog: coppola.rsmart.com

On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Joseph Scheuhammer wrote:

> Chris,
> Regarding (2) the Fluid licence, that's not right.  Fluid is dual  
> licenced under BSD and ECL 2.0:
> http://source.fluidproject.org/svn/LICENSE.txt
>> 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?
> Short answer:  no.  But, I am not a lawyer either.  As far as I  
> know, the LGPL is compatible with Fluid's licensing policy -- Fluid  
> can link to the jAria code, it can re-distibute the code, and, I  
> believe is legally allowed to contribute to it (that is, contribute  
> to an LGPL'ed project).
> Your question is possibly, although unlikely, more apropos jQuery in  
> the sense of whether jQuery plugins must be licensed in the same way  
> as jQuery itself (which is the dual MIT/GPL licence).  I think LGPL  
> is sufficient for that as well (it's compatible).
> -- 
> ;;;;joseph
> 'This is not war -- this is pest control!'
>     - "Doomsday", Dalek Leader -

More information about the fluid-work mailing list