On Friday, 14 October 2005, at 06:10:31 (-0400), Jose O Gonzalez wrote: > All of this appears reasonable, and yet there are arguments that > are also reasonable to the effect that license XYZ is instead a 'better' > way to go. > Rather than agonize over attempting to dissect the fine points of > license A over license B, one can offer the option of both (if possible) > as has been suggested by the poster. > In particular, if BSD and LGPL are the A and B here, then why not > have all "e" code covered under a choice of either - ie. a company or > a distribution can use BSD or LGPL as they wish. Where is there a loss to > e, or its developers, in this added extra flexibility??
As raster said, this is an explanation, not a discussion. The decision was made (and hashed out at length) a very long time ago, and it isn't under review. Been there, done that, moved on. :-) Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life." -- Captain Picard, "Peak Performance" ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
