On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:20:07 -0400 Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> I'm not sure that the 'majority of the work' was done by people who > *like* that license, not for every sub-project.. or even if partly so, > whether that will continue to be the case -- or more to the point, whether > any real increase in the growth and evolution of the project will happen > under such a license. Often, I saw some people react with hostility to any > attempt to even bring up the issue, and basically deliver a wide-ranging > ultimatum that no code was ever going to be accepted into E's cvs unless it > was under a BSD/MIT license -- consider Michael Jenning's recent remark: > "Contributions which become part of E or the EFL must be BSD licensed" > > I'm not sure what kind of 'authority' he feels he has to make such a > statement, but it certainly doesn't reflect anything I feel comfortable with, > and will limit my contributions to this project, for purely personal reasons > -- even though I like many other aspects of it, this one just doesn't work > for me... never has and never will. if this is for code going into an existing application and/or library he is right. code is to be the same license as the existing tree - if it is to be a different license - it cannot go into the tree. this is simply standard practice. if someone wants to create a new library, a new app (and by this i would define it as having its own configure.in/ac and build tree) then they may choose any license they like. if they make is a GPL library - then it will never be used by me as a basis for any other apps that are not GPL (as the GPL thus infects). if it's LGPL - it's moot as the license does not extend beyond the boundaries of that library. if its an app - it doesn't matter. this is simply standard licensing practice... everywhere. as i said - IMHO GPL is not right - it infects beyond the boundaries of its container. LGPL is acceptable. the BSD license we use is almost a variant of LGPL but offers a "way out" of having to ship source. it means you can't just silently use it and take credit - you have to give credit. as nathan said - the cost of maintaining a fork grows over time and becomes big. either sheer stupidity will mean the fork is maintained ad-infinitum (and frankly.. do u want code from someone that stupid?) or they will give back. it's much simpler and easier to give back. -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
