On Thursday, 24 July 2008, at 11:50:52 (-0300), Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> I must say I agree with you, I do think the license is something > that matters and LGPL is better for something as EFL. "Better" in what ways? Other than simply being able to say "we're LGPL," how does it improve things? What does the LGPL buy us that the BSD license denies us? So far the only "concrete" thing mentioned were Jose's missing contributions. :-) > I also agree that "we decided this 10 years ago and we'll not > rethink" is a bad thing, I apologize if you inferred that from something I wrote, but I never said that, nor do I think that. It's hard to remember these days whether certain decisions were made via e-mail or in person. There aren't too many people still around who remember when (and why) these decisions were made, or even that they were made to begin with. If they were made in person between raster, mandrake, and myself (and possibly horms), the list is even shorter. :) Allowing raster to focus on code instead of administrivia is in the best interest of the project as a whole, so I've always tried to shoulder as much of that load as possible. Over the years we've had a few occasions to rethink and rediscuss licensing, but the decisions (and the reasons for them) really haven't changed before. If they do now, then they do, but it doesn't hurt anyone to understand or be reminded of the original thinking on the subject. > damn, some of the guys that did this decision 10 years ago don't > even write code nowadays, I'm not sure if pointed statements like this one fall into the "flamewar" category Jorge originally mentioned, but that's okay. :) How much or how little the original decision makers contribute to E currently doesn't really change the reasoning behind the decision or its historic significance. It also doesn't change the fact that making project-level decisions ultimately falls to raster today just as it did back then. > One thing I'd like to see here is the opinion of those that do most > of the code these days, guys like englebass, dj2, pfritz and > raster. You wrote lots of code already, and continue to do, what do > you think about relicensing the code under LGPL? Relicensing requires buy-in (unanimous buy-in, in fact) from ALL contributors, not just currently-active ones. Licensing for new code is a much simpler matter. Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "I'm one of those mayors whose management style is to allow free and unlimited debate up to a point." -- Marion Barry ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
