Peter Wehrfritz wrote: > Jorge Luis Zapata Muga schrieb: > >> As i said too many times, there was edata, this arguments are refered >> to edata, not eina, you can think of eina on just the same >> conceptually lib but developed from the base code of edata. So i >> wasn't expecting developers on eina, i was expecting them on edata >> when i created it, but none appeared, so the excuse of "it was outside >> cvs" applies to eina, but im ok with that and never wanted to say the >> other thing, what i meant is the "feedback" it has received, as edata >> received none, eina also received none, until raster give a "go" and >> the license has become an issue, those are facts, not opinions. >> >> > > Yes, you weren't the only one how wanted to have a data type lib, but E > had a dep-freeze, if you haven't forgot. And it was clear that ecore > would have been split after the release of E17. After e_dbus and efreet > where added as a direct dep of e17, raster seems to have changed his > mind. But that happen some weeks ago. So there wasn't really a reason > for a data type lib before. > > And after that i presented edt as a beginning to put the data types into > a single standalone lib. But you insisted that it must be eina. Now I > understand why. Before the license discussion I thought it is because of > the indentation or the name, why it must be eina and not something else. > > >>> or he may not have bothered to check since everything else is BSD, he >>> probably assumed it was BSD. >>> >>> >> No, he didnt assumed that. I explicitly sent an email saying my will >> about the library when he hadn't commit anything into eina yet, and he >> already expressed his will, of not contributing code and not coding on >> it, so i took the risk. The thing here is why should i care now (two >> years later) for something that others didnt care back then? not >> talking on eina directly, but edata as it predecessor. that's what i >> argue when answering the consensus mail you sent me, you ask me for >> consensus on a project where there is no consensus. >> >> > > Actually I thought it was BSD licensed. I didn't expect that Trojan > horse tactic. Only after Vincent has asked me if it is ok for me to > switch to LGPL I realized that i contributed to a proprietary project. > I am using e since the beginning and find that this discussion about this license issue will never stop. From my user point of view (which is probably meaningless), I also feel that this discussion was introduced in a trojan way and discussing about it will not give the solution to this problem. I will not stop using e because it is under lgpl or anything else but from a user point of view I wish to see coherence in the project, i.e., that the efl libs and e17 are under the same license, that's all. I understand the arguments in favor of (or against) lgpl but I do not think that changing license will solve the diverse problems that the project has. It is a not a divide and conquer algorithm that the project needs but probably some consensus. One of them is to stop this flame war about license. This discussion does not give good signs to potential users.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
