On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:00:19 +0100 Thomas Strobel <[email protected]> said:
> Hello, > > i have a question concerning the licensing of EFL. What it the thought > behind releasing Eina with LGPL whereas almost everything else is under > BSD? I mean, Eina is the most fundamental part out of all, but has the > least permissive license. And as Eina is making heavy use of inline > functions, that implicitly forces the BSD licensed parts to LGPL as > well, or? inline funcs do not - same with enums structs etc. yes - you can ARGUE this - but the intent and wording of the license do not imply this. glib has used lgpl for years and exposes inline funcs in headers. and glib (and gt in turn etc.) have had mountains of closed apps/tools built on top and never a court case (that i know of) about it. if it is truly a problem (and to date i have yet to see that), then i am sure we can provide clarification, as i know it is the intent to be clear about efls boundaries and where efl starts and stops, and though the headers are part of efl, they DECLARE a way of interacting with efl and anyone #including public headers installed in order to use efl is not suddenly a derivative work by our intent. that app or library is definitely outside the bounds of being covered by any license in efl - bsd or lgpl. -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
