Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 July 2008, at 19:25:42 (+0200),
> Vincent Torri wrote:
>
>
>> I've learned a lot about the licences reading these mails, and it seems
>> that the fact is not "such licence is a hindrance" but "such licence can
>> give us developpers". That's different. So, from what i've understood, wrt
>> companies :
>>
>> 1) either with stay with BSD, and only the companies that accept to work
>> with code licenced under BSD would eventually share code with us
>>
>> 2) either we switch to, for example LGPL, or other similar licence (I was
>> told that MPL is not that bad), and then companies that accept to share
>> code with LGPL AND BSD licenced code would eventually help us. The
>> difference can be great.
>>
>> So if we want to have more than 5 devs on the core efl, we should
>> seriously discuss about which licence to use.
>>
>
> I dispute the belief that license is the key (or even one of the key)
> factors in the success of an open source software project. There are
> other reasons besides license as to why the previous example project
> comparisons came out the way they did (like continuous, ongoing
> financial backing), and I can provide examples of GPL/LGPL projects
> that have failed against their BSD-licensed counterparts (Berlin) and
> of successful BSD-licensed projects (Vorbis).
>
> The only way to scientifically assert that LGPL > BSD for project
> success is to have two identical codebases, one under each license,
> and see which one wins. That would, of course, be somewhat
> silly...but that's the only way to control your experimental
> variables.
>
> I can also point to reasons why E hasn't been used (or has been
> replaced) in certain commercial ventures, and I'm know at least a
> couple people on this list who could do the same. So far I don't know
> a single company or organization which has cited license as their
> reason for moving away from E.
>
> And without really looking too hard, I was able to easily find articles
> about actual, decent-sized public companies (not the least of which
> being Apple) who chose BSD-licensed software because it's MORE
> business-friendly:
>
> http://www.bsdatwork.com/2002/01/03/source_of_mac_os_x/
> http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2001/04/is_bsd_taking_the_spotlight_aw.html
>
> The bottom line is that you'll find developers who refuse to code *GPL
> software just like you'll find those who refuse to code BSD/MIT/X
> software. And like it or not, their reasoning almost always has
> something to do with how they define "freedom" and whose freedoms
> they're trying to protect.
>
> Michael
>
>
Let me tell you exactly what I think of all this, my view alone.
The problems you encountered with E years ago you brought upon
yourselves and have perpetuated ever since.
While the rest of the foss world grew and grew, E solidified.
While the rest of the foss world become more and more inclusive, E
became more and more exclusive. While they addressed the concerns of
developers and grew their base, E became more elitist and concentrated
on making it easy to try and sell a product to a willing buyer.
Your elitism, arrogance, and intolerance grew to the point that you
felt you could dictate as you wished, and harass, bully, and silence any
who would question the pre-decided views.. and that you have indeed done.
The underlying concern in the foss community at large has always been
"freedom", and for the overwhelming majority of its developers that has always
revolved around something that can be summed up with the question that Peter
inadvertently posed:
"Would you share code with someone that doesn't share code with you?"
The gpl/lgpl licenses address precisely that concern of the large
majority of foss developers, to *their* satisfaction. The bsd license does
nothing towards that, it's instead seen as facilitating potential abuse by
large interests by not requiring that they 'give back', what you call being
"business-friendly".
Those projects which have 'embraced' gpl/lgpl, who do address the
concerns of their developers to *their* satisfaction and want to grow that
base, have grown and grown and produced such a *vast* array of work and
dedicated developers that it's remarkable. For you to cite one or two
'counter-examples' especially ones backed by large, powerful companies,
is a joke.
As you never cared about building a large community of foss developers,
you have thus helped to create a largely dysfunctional project starved of
resources. That's as much a part of E's legacy as anything good it may have
stood for and done.
Now, having said all that, we can also turn this around, and claim that
the 'real' powers here with interests are some others - perhaps something like
the FSF which wrote the gpl/lgpl licenses, and that it's them that are abusing
developers and taking away their freedom, perhaps even taking code and not
giving it back. But you will never be able to decide that objectively either,
and certainly not without speaking with large numbers of developers in foss
projects covered by those licenses and taking their views as valid to them.
But, of course, the licenses may indeed have nothing to with anything,
it's all pure speculation on my part here, and we do lack an experimental
method to aid us.
jose.
____________________________________________________________
Stuck in a dead end job?? Click to start living your dreams by earning an
online degree.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nNfaMD6fBMYmdqUCZHh0IxxluLyzyoawUWxzMNIW1xUNrQ0/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
