On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:53:15 +0200 "Jorge Luis Zapata Muga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> I have a question here, where is the authorship then? if i have an app > A licensed with L, i guess im free to relicense another (or the same) > app with license M right? and if so, being myself the author how can i > not put my own code into another app with license N? does the > authorship get relegated to the license itself? any code you own (are the author of) you are free to re-license yourself elsewhere any way you like! that is why if you have 1 owner or a smallset of owners, they can release something as open source AND as closed, as they are owners - hey are free to also release it under another license. the owner has the right to release their work under any licence they like and as often as they like - and change the license (in a new release). existing releases retain existing licenses. > > The reason we originally required all items in the repo to be BSD > > licensed (and yes, this decision was made a long time ago) was so that > > code could be moved seamlessly between projects without having to > > worry about relicensing or infecting other projects. > > > > It sounds like you're rescinding that decision. If so, that's fine, > > but everyone needs to understand that code can't just move around at > > will any more. But it's your call. > > > >> as i said - IMHO GPL is not right - it infects beyond the boundaries > >> of its container. LGPL is acceptable. > > > > Unfortunately, so does the LGPL. > > > > Let's look at LGPLv2.1 first > > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html). According > > to Section 2a, any "work based on the Library" (that is, anything > > containing the Library's code, or any portion thereof, even just a > > single function or code block cut-and-pasted in) MUST itself be a > > LIBRARY. > > > > Wait, what? Yup, that's right. The LGPL forbids you from snagging a > > portion of code from an LGPL library and using it in a program (i.e., > > independent executable). In fact, I can't find anything anywhere in > > the LGPLv2.1 that allows it to be used for non-libraries. LGPLv3 > > doesn't appear to have this limitation, since "Library" is defined as > > any work covered by the LGPLv3. But LGPLv2.1 only covers objects you > > link with to create executables, not executables. So LGPL code cannot > > be used in applications (e.g., E itself). > > > > Based on the clear language of the license, trying to apply it to a > > software program (like OpenOffice.org) doesn't seem to make any sense, > > since the legal term Library used throughout the license cannot apply > > to something like Writer which you would never "link against to form > > executables." > > > > The only provision in LGPLv2.1 that would allow someone to use LGPL > > code in an application is Section 3 which allows the LGPL to be > > replaced by the GPL at any time (and at version 2 or any later > > version). So in order to cut-paste-and-modify code from an LGPL > > library into an application, the application MUST become GPL. > > > > Obviously this does not include linking, but one of the primary > > reasons we picked the license we did was so that our code could be > > used in other software under other licenses (Apache, Artistic, > > Mozilla, or yes, even the GPL). Because of Sections 2c and 3, any > > code coming from an LGPL project which is used in any way other than > > linking can only be used in GPL/LGPL software. > > > > Here's an example of the danger: Let's say EWL is BSD, and the authors > > want to borrow a small bit of code from a large LGPL'd library > > (without linking to it); EWL would have to be LGPL'd. Worse yet, if > > EWL wanted to borrow some code from E, and E were "LGPL'd" (which > > really means GPL'd since it's not a library), EWL would have to become > > GPL'd. Then all software using EWL would be GPL'd. > > > > So yes, even the LGPL can "infect" other code. Just not as badly. > > > > The LGPLv3, unlike the LGPLv2.1, is not a separate license in its own > > right. It is a set of addendums to the GPLv3 which provide additional > > "permissions" above and beyond those granted by the GPL. Having not > > read the GPLv3 myself, I'm not prepared to discuss whether it's better > > or worse. The LGPLv3, as I said before, does seem to allow itself to > > be applied to applications as well as libraries, so it would really > > seem to be the only option for LGPL'ing the programs that link with > > the EFL. > > > > If all we care about is linking, then LGPL is just as fine as BSD. > > But is that all we care about? > > > > Michael > > > > -- > > Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "Kyrie eleison down the road that I must travel. Kyrie eleison > > through the darkness of the night. Kyrie eleison; where I'm going, > > will you follow?" -- Mr. Mister, "Kyrie" > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > > -- ------------- 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 enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
