Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Have fun getting any of the libs in CVS to use Eina now. Just more >>>>>> split effort... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Since they're basically the only doing any code in CVS, it will be as >>>>> hard as before. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I guess I should stop working on EFM then and all those working on EWL >>>> should cease as well. Don't make stupid statements. There are plenty of >>>> people who have and continue to contribute when they can to all of E's >>>> CVS, >>>> by making such a statement you just look stupid. I realize you are >>>> trying >>>> to make a point with all this switching, but in all honesty all it's >>>> going >>>> to do is make things worse, so thank all of you for screwing up our >>>> community more then it already was. >>>> >>>> >>> Ok, so let's reduce the scope of my statement to make it less stupid: >>> "Since they're basically the only doing any code in CVS [THAT WOULD >>> USE EINA DIRECTLY], it will be as hard as before". >>> >>> I see ecore and evas as main users, possible provide some helpers to >>> have eet descriptors with eina data types. Of course there are many >>> places where it could be used, including EWL or ETK, but I saw no talk >>> about moving them so far. >>> >>> >> EWL uses ecore data types, thus it will use eina indirectly and thus >> indirectly it will be bound by the terms of the LGPL as will anyone using >> ecore, evas, edje, etc. >> > > ah, fine... so you all use BSD's libC, do not use GNU LibC or any > other LGPL library... > > There are plenty of libc's, if a company so chooses they could use a BSD licensed libc and build the EFL on top of it. This may require patches, but they can easily patch it themselves if they want to. The contents of libc are far more common between variations then Eina will be. Also, if we didn't support GNU libc at all, we probably wouldn't have anywhere near the exposure we do (note this is no argument for LGPL, people just happened to build Linux with the GNU tools and here we are today with that being the most popular combination).
Either way, you completely ignored the fact that you are causing major headaches for the community and in the end this isn't going to make anything better, so once again, thank you for being short-sighted and trying to force your way upon others who have long ago decided how free they wanted their software to be. Now they are being forced to either waste effort or switch licenses, neither of which feels very good (one of which is impossible) and sure the hell isn't going to bring more developers (or even end users) as some like to claim. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
