> > > This policy is not fitting current developer's need anymore, at least > a big part of active developers. These developers are willing to > invest even more efforts, making EFL even better, but they want some > changes. > > People already said about forks and do these kind of things out of CVS > or main project tree, but really, most of ACTIVE developers either do > not care or are pro-LGPL, thus if one forks it, probably current cvs > would die. > > Before anyone reply to this mail to flame me, just check the amount of > benefits from those that are strictly BSD and those that want to move > to LGPL, than judge who is doing any work and who is talking. I really > wonder why these guys that do no code nowadays want so strongly to > talk about these stuff, give up, go away, or help.
See, It's not about BSD vs LGPL. It's just that we can't and we must not have our core libs dual licensed. I'm not saying that you or anyone else is not contributing or have to fork the tree or whatever. Just keep the consistency in the core. If the WHOLE core base cannot be LGPL'd then dont LGPL the new parts of it. This is ridiculous. I respect you all, your work, your desire to change the license but this is not the way to go. -- Luchezar P. Petkov http://luchko.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
