On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:57:10 +0200 "Cedric BAIL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
just to summaries - i am not in agrement lgpl will help over bsd, BUT... i also have nothing against lgpl... i DO have a lot against gpl - in fatc qt's gpl license drives a lot of companies to gtk (lgpl) and thus increases suppot for it. efl's success based on license i think is a specious argument - but if everyone wants to move to LGPL - i have nothing against it... the PROBLEM is that every author must agree - in writing (email will do). that means every author must be contacted and reply. for every lib (or app) that changes license. i can say now... that this likely will waste a lot of time... and all contributions until license are changed need to be on hold as contributions do not know what license it will come under. ... i don't like the "bureaucracy" of this... if i could press a button and just have a popdown box of license and it would just change - it'd be a moot point, but it isn't. > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Cedric wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> What are the reasons people prefer one type of license over another.. > >>> and does that affect the number or quality of contributors or > >>> contributions? Again, who knows. I don't like licenses in the software > >>> world - I think it's abhorrent. > >>> But unfortunately, their existance and that of patents is very real so > >>> both corps and individuals have to make a decision. > >>> Personally, I'd *never* contribute anything that I'd consider to be a > >>> truly serious, dedicated, body of time and work to a project that wan't > >>> LGPL or GPL. But that's just me. > >> > >> I can share my experience too on this subject. In my previous company, > >> it was a problem to contribute code back to a BSD licenced software > >> (and GPL too). The lawyer and all the intellectual property guys would > >> forbid us to give back code under this licence. In fact, only LGPL > >> would have been a solution. That was the reason, why they choose GTK > >> instead of anything else and without any technical consideration. > >> To fix this problem, I changed for a smarter company. But that's just me > >> :-) > > > > Smarter or not.. again, who really knows. Companies make their choices, > > individuals make theirs.. each based on whatever set of reasons. Sometimes > > those reasons are the same or similar, sometimes they're not. For me, it's > > just a personal decision. > > That's true. I should have stated that using the EFL is only a > technical decision. But this is not something common. > > And despite what others could think, I think you are raising a very > good point. The way we handle this licence issue define how we handle > our current community and how we will grow. > > We should compare on this aspect with other toolkit community. Both > GTK and QT are around more or less as long as the E project exist. We > are all around since a decade now. > > So looking at GTK. Their core component are LGPL based. Many company > and individual are involing in this project, much more than in the E > project. For the company, I know for sure that many choose GTK because > of it's licence (all the big company that are ruled by intellectual > property rather than technical staff will choose LGPL, that's really a > fact). For individual, I think their is more people willing to > contribute to a project if they know that others will be forced to > help. But that's just an opinion, a feeling. > > Looking at QT. Their core component are GPL+proprietary licence. One > company, trolltech, is acting like a proxy for others company and > individuals. Contributing to the core is done mainly by Trolltech from > what I know (tell me if I am wrong), but as a community of developper > around this core, people benefit from the GPL effect and the growing > contribution to any of it's part. > > Both GTK and QT have now a good marketing force with a strong > community and part of this is due to this licence. Sure we could find > others reasons for this difference, but let's look at our community. > > Our core component are BSD based licence. We are less than five people > working now on the core (I include eet,evas,ecore,embryo and edje in > this core). A few company are using the EFL, their code is most of the > time proprietary, in some case they open it under LGPL and in a fewer > case they contribute to this core library. Much more individuals are > working with this core library and provide apps and library under the > licence they feel including BSD, LGPL and GPL. > > So we are definitively not a community working on the EFL, but a > community working with the EFL. We are not using them only to build > E17 and our CVS is more a community repository where many apps end. > And we should encourage the growth of this community. For this we > should let our users choose the licence they want and continue to make > our decision based on technical value. We never dictated the licence > of our users, that's how I understand the choice of our licence for > the core EFL. And I think we should continue to push this behaviour > forward, by letting any new open source code go inside our CVS. That's > how our community has grown in the past. > > But now that we have a decade of history, it's also a good time to > think about what we want and expect for the core EFL. I want this > community to continue to grow. I want more apps using the EFL. I want > the core EFL to be improved, get faster, better and I really would > like more contribution to the core. That's how I feel about this > project. And I think that Jorge and Jose mail where all about that. > And how we should act to improve the situation. > > I believe that puting the core EFL under a LGPL licence will help > having more company backing us and more people contributing to the > core. Eet, Embryo and Edje could be LGPL could be moved to LGPL > without any problem for any of our users. Evas and Ecore could be LGPL > also, as the engine are dynamically loaded and they are independent. > Perhaps we could explicitely state that engine could stay proprietary > as this could impact some of our users. But at the end I think, we > have a lot to win by switching the licence of the core to LGPL and > nothing to loose. > > This decision should have nothing to do with our religion about > freedom, but what we expect from this community and how we want it to > grow. It's not time for a flamewar, it's time to think and come with a > plan for the growth of this community. I know they are more subjects > than the licence, but this is the first and the one than will most > likely impact our community growth and the strength of it's core. This > decision will impact our users, that's true whatever it is. But this > will not change the way people use it. Just the power we give to > people using it. And if people have other idea to increase the > strength of contribution to the core, it's time to raise you voice. > > -- > Cedric BAIL > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -- ------------- 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
