Hi Kevin, [^_^]
Yes :)
> Btw, I recommend to keep the attribution lines intact.
>
I'm sorry I didn't know what it (attribution lines) means
There is simply no such thing as "better" when it comes to licensing.
>
There is such thing. If not, there is no point for Richard Stallman to
suggest Vorbis Library licensing under BSD-like license and not under GPL
or even the Lesser GPL.
Well, if we were simple media representatives than yes, that would probably
> our view. Fortunately, as IT professionals, we have a way bigger picture
> and
> know that Linux has been a tremendous success in a lot of fields long
> before
> mobile device vendors started using it.
> Those are basically just the tip of the iceberg, the part that is visible
> by
> the uneducated population.
>
The advantage of technology is not just to be enjoyed by some professionals
in a particular field, but for every class of user. We can enjoyed an
advantages of Ferrari or Duccati without needed to become a mechanical
engineer as we can enjoyed an advantages of Linux Kernel in Android without
needed to become an IT professionals. We cannot said someone as uneducated
just because they didn't know what Linux kernel was. What you say as
uneducated may be a doctor, a biologist, a lawyer, a historian, a
president, a pastor, etc. who just have no time to examine what Linux was.
Just like an IT professionals who may didn't know about *Osteoprotegerin*,
TNFRSF11B gene, *pacta sunt servanda*, history of mongol, etc.
> Sure, if there hadn't been KHTML or if it had been permissively licensed
> then
> there would be not WebKit. Fortunately a team of dedicated engineers at KDE
> created a world class HTML render engine plus a JavaScript engine and
> licensed
> it in a way that both allowed usage in prorprietary context but also
> ensured
> that improvements would become available under the same terms as well.
>
If KHTML licensed under GPL in the first place, Apple wouldn't interested
to take its source code and enhance it.
Obviously we at KDE (myself included) wouldn't put tons of our code under
> LGPL
> license terms if we thought it would be bad license, wouldn't we?
>From this point of view, I think we are same. I never persuade LXDE-Qt
developers to use permissive license. I only convinced them to use LGPL
instead of GPL, both for libraries and for its native (non-3rd party)
applications. So there is no need to worry about KWin, Konqueror, Dolphin,
etc because they weren't native LXDE-Qt applications.
Sure, but that isn't a licensing problem. KDE software, for example, is
> being used on operating system ranging from extremely persmissive to fully
> proprietary.
Sometimes license can become a problem. The depreciation of GCC in FreeBSD
base system is one of the example. And I never hear a fully proprietary
operating system with copyleft component in it.
--
Best regards,
Ryan Bram
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite!
It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production.
Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Lxde-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
