--- Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not a done deal. It _is_ a done deal. If you want to change it, rewrite all parts of plex86 from non-consenting parties including me. 'nough said. > The LGPL isn't a license for libraries, only often used for that. Who cares? Read the text again for the real message. > I don't see what licensing has to do with architectural defects. Architectural design, licensing, and many other factors add together to form a complete "welcome mat" which enables the sharing, contribution, interaction, acceptance, draw etc for potential users/developers both commercial and otherwise. When a real architect puts together a plan, they consider as many significant things as possible before making the final blue print and certainly before implementing. What a lot of OSS/free/libre hackers do mistakenly is considering only the technical and philisophical parameters. This is akin to designing a sky-scraper without looking into building code. Sounds good in class, sucks hairy ass in the real world dude. If you want a reasonably complex program to succeed and you think it's gonna need the support of some of the big boys, you better start thinking about what makes them happy too. This is where you can take that GNU diatribe and flush it down the toilet. The GNU licenses in general were holding back a lot of commercial support for quite some time. I personally pinged RMS on a couple issues which would have been simple to correct. But the guy _insists_ on maintaining his personal philisophical spewing agenda. When he could have simply corrected problems at no real expense, and gained earlier support. So back to your comment. GPL was _not_ acceptable to previous relationships of mine, and LGPL was the one people voted most for. > There might be a reason for reinventing stuff. Maybe to do it better, or > because you have another goal in mind. Your point is well taken - sometimes you gotta reinvent stuff. What people are talking about is borrowing components from other projects. Which means, necessarily there needs to be some commonality in an architecture to facilitate that sharing. Or one mother-fscking big hack which is unmanageable. If you want something new, persue something new. If you wanna borrow/share other code, persue a modular and common interface. Otherwise don't bother. Also, if you want to borrow code, then that code has to be innately "shareable" by license. Therefore, architecture interfaces and license should be part of the original blue-print. If you work backwards from such potentialities as code sharing, perhaps it's more clear that A) people who start projects never really thought through the license decision and B) the GNU people are steering people in the wrong direction, posing the LGPL as "lesser". In fact it is more open, has less encumberances, more flexible, and promotes the spirit and principal of open/free/libre software more than GPL. That said, it is not perfect and needs a fix-up by somebody who's mind is not on auto-repeat. -Kevin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com
