-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Jesse Ross wrote: >>> I am thinking to move the codes regarding battery into >>> SystemConfig. >>> Currently, a Linux implementation using /proc/apm is in >>> PowerMenulet >>> and a FreeBSD implementation is in EtoileMenuServer. >>> While it is not hard to do so, I have to deal with license issue >>> first. >>> PowerMenulet (me) is in BSD-license. >>> MenuServer (Saso) is GPL 2, but the ETMachineInfo_FreeBSD.m >>> (David) is in BSD. >>> (I am not sure it is allowed in this case). >> It is allowed, given the consent of both authors, which I believe we >> have :-) don't forget that licenses don't apply to the authors of >> the work. >> >>> SystemConfig (Quentin and Guenther) is under LGPL2. >>> I understand everyone has his opinions on the license. >>> I *personally* think the easiest solution is to turn >>> SystemConfig into BSD. >>> Comments ? >>> >>> Yen-Ju >>> >> I don't really care, and there is no problem relicensing MenuServer >> under any license we want. > > We may want to take this opportunity to come up with some formal > rules for what licenses code must be under in order to be accepted > into the Etoile project. Thus far, we've been pretty open to allowing > most anything, with a preference for BSD and LGPL. While we're still > in the early stages of the project and should be able to track down > everyone who's committed something to the codebase, it is to our > benefit to go through the code now and see if we can't talk to the > authors and relicense work that is already in the project into the > most permissive license we can, in order to give us flexibility with > code combination. > > This is what I'm proposing: > > All new code should be under a BSD or more permissive license (X11/ > MIT, public domain...). > All existing code should be attempted to be relicensed to BSD or more > permissive, with the author's permission. > Any new contributions to existing projects should be under the same > license as the project, or a more permissive license. > Any ports or forks from existing work should be under the license of > the original project, and should not be GPL if there is a more > permissively-licensed alternative. > > > Thoughts? > > > J. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Etoile-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev >
I agree with the thought of clarifying licensing issues. I don't really agree to use a totally liberal license (i.e. BSD or releasing into the public domain), but if it's what people want, I have no objections. - -- Saso -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG7vXdakxhuWWzY78RA/1JAKCUtJjXIK88ZD3jqI0tPIca74ltjQCggCWO rcmWfRK9QhYpW4VUxhtSErE= =GFtv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Etoile-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev
