subject:"Re\: \[E\-devel\] License questions"

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:45:47 +0200 Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
[EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:

 Hi all,
 
 I dont pretend to start a flamewar, if you do, please dont answer this
 thread.The thing is that right now, the EFL has arrived to a place
 where different companies are using this software, and several of us
 are working on a company using the efl (raster, gustavo, cedric, me,
 anyone else?).
 
 From a closed source company POV, BSD license is great because they
 dont need to give us anything back (fancypants example?); but for

fancypants is a layer above efl - there are patches... and believe it or not..
they have given stuff back! if we were lgpl it'd be the same. if we were
gpl...i know i'd quit as thats not the kind of freedom i like - FORCING any
user of a library (an api) to use your license for their application - even if
all they do it use your api, imho is wrong and the wrong kind of freedom.

we also can't go changing license.. you know that requires every author to
agree - that means all authors needs to say yes - and you need to contact all
authors... not likely to happen.

as such - you should READ the license (COPYING and COPYING-PLAIN). you will
find that the bsd license INCLUDES an advertising clause, and the advertising
clause can be met in 3 ways:

1. advertise (so you can be googled for)
2. email authors (so you can be tracked)
3. lgpl (ie ship the source to the LIBS you use, not your app. this would
include any modifications you made)

 companies that do want to build an opensource initiative based on the
 EFL, BSD is not so great, because their code can be stolen from

you do know - if you want to steal code.. you can steal it license or not. it's
incredibly easy to steal code... and never be caught.

 others; so whats your opinion on this? how to achieve an open source
 compromise and still be able to use EFL and develop for it?. In my
 opinion building a company around BSD license is not an option for the
 market, but GPL'ing libraries is not good as it leaves all the BSD ppl
 away, maybe LGPL?

that is why i kept the advertising clause :)

 Thanks
 
 -
 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=100url=/
 ___
 enlightenment-devel mailing list
 enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
 


-- 
- Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am --
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:20:07 -0400 Jose Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:


   I'm not sure that the 'majority of the work' was done by people who
 *like* that license, not for every sub-project.. or even if partly so,
 whether that will continue to be the case -- or more to the point, whether
 any real increase in the growth and evolution of the project will happen
 under such a license. Often, I saw some people react with hostility to any
 attempt to even bring up the issue, and basically deliver a wide-ranging
 ultimatum that no code was ever going to be accepted into E's cvs unless it
 was under a BSD/MIT license -- consider Michael Jenning's recent remark:
   Contributions which become part of E or the EFL must be BSD licensed
 
   I'm not sure what kind of 'authority' he feels he has to make such a
 statement, but it certainly doesn't reflect anything I feel comfortable with,
 and will limit my contributions to this project, for purely personal reasons
 -- even though I like many other aspects of it, this one just doesn't work
 for me... never has and never will.

if this is for code going into an existing application and/or library he is
right. code is to be the same license as the existing tree - if it is to be a
different license - it cannot go into the tree. this is simply standard
practice. if someone wants to create a new library, a new app (and by this i
would define it as having its own configure.in/ac and build tree) then they may
choose any license they like. if they make is a GPL library - then it will
never be used by me as a basis for any other apps that are not GPL (as the GPL
thus infects). if it's LGPL - it's moot as the license does not extend beyond
the boundaries of that library. if its an app - it doesn't matter.

this is simply standard licensing practice... everywhere.

as i said - IMHO GPL is not right - it infects beyond the boundaries of its
container. LGPL is acceptable. the BSD license we use is almost a variant of
LGPL but offers a way out of having to ship source. it means you can't just
silently use it and take credit - you have to give credit. as nathan said - the
cost of maintaining a fork grows over time and becomes big. either sheer
stupidity will mean the fork is maintained ad-infinitum (and frankly.. do u
want code from someone that stupid?) or they will give back. it's much simpler
and easier to give back.

-- 
- Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am --
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:57:10 +0200 Cedric BAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:

just to summaries - i am not in agrement lgpl will help over bsd, BUT... i also
have nothing against lgpl... i DO have a lot against gpl - in fatc qt's gpl
license drives a lot of companies to gtk (lgpl) and thus increases suppot for
it. efl's success based on license i think is a specious argument - but if
everyone wants to move to LGPL - i have nothing against it...

the PROBLEM is that every author must agree - in writing (email will do). that
means every author must be contacted and reply. for every lib (or app) that
changes license.

i can say now... that this likely will waste a lot of time... and all
contributions until license are changed need to be on hold as contributions do
not know what license it will come under.

... i don't like the bureaucracy of this... if i could press a button and
just have a popdown box of license and it would just change - it'd be a moot
point, but it isn't.

 On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Jose Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Cedric wrote:
  On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Jose Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  What are the reasons people prefer one type of license over another..
  and does that affect the number or quality of contributors or
  contributions? Again, who knows. I don't like licenses in the software
  world - I think it's abhorrent.
  But unfortunately, their existance and that of patents is very real so
  both corps and individuals have to make a decision.
  Personally, I'd *never* contribute anything that I'd consider to be a
  truly serious, dedicated, body of time and work to a project that wan't
  LGPL or GPL. But that's just me.
 
  I can share my experience too on this subject. In my previous company,
  it was a problem to contribute code back to a BSD licenced software
  (and GPL too). The lawyer and all the intellectual property guys would
  forbid us to give back code under this licence. In fact, only LGPL
  would have been a solution. That was the reason, why they choose GTK
  instead of anything else and without any technical consideration.
   To fix this problem, I changed for a smarter company. But that's just me
  :-)
 
  Smarter or not.. again, who really knows. Companies make their choices,
  individuals make theirs.. each based on whatever set of reasons. Sometimes
  those reasons are the same or similar, sometimes they're not. For me, it's
  just a personal decision.
 
 That's true. I should have stated that using the EFL is only a
 technical decision. But this is not something common.
 
 And despite what others could think, I think you are raising a very
 good point. The way we handle this licence issue define how we handle
 our current community and how we will grow.
 
 We should compare on this aspect with other toolkit community. Both
 GTK and QT are around more or less as long as the E project exist. We
 are all around since a decade now.
 
 So looking at GTK. Their core component are LGPL based. Many company
 and individual are involing in this project, much more than in the E
 project. For the company, I know for sure that many choose GTK because
 of it's licence (all the big company that are ruled by intellectual
 property rather than technical staff will choose LGPL, that's really a
 fact). For individual, I think their is more people willing to
 contribute to a project if they know that others will be forced to
 help. But that's just an opinion, a feeling.
 
 Looking at QT. Their core component are GPL+proprietary licence. One
 company, trolltech, is acting like a proxy for others company and
 individuals. Contributing to the core is done mainly by Trolltech from
 what I know (tell me if I am wrong), but as a community of developper
 around this core, people benefit from the GPL effect and the growing
 contribution to any of it's part.
 
 Both GTK and QT have now a good marketing force with a strong
 community and part of this is due to this licence. Sure we could find
 others reasons for this difference, but let's look at our community.
 
 Our core component are BSD based licence. We are less than five people
 working now on the core (I include eet,evas,ecore,embryo and edje in
 this core). A few company are using the EFL, their code is most of the
 time proprietary, in some case they open it under LGPL and in a fewer
 case they contribute to this core library. Much more individuals are
 working with this core library and provide apps and library under the
 licence they feel including BSD, LGPL and GPL.
 
 So we are definitively not a community working on the EFL, but a
 community working with the EFL. We are not using them only to build
 E17 and our CVS is more a community repository where many apps end.
 And we should encourage the growth of this community. For this we
 should let our users choose the licence they want and continue to make
 our decision based on technical value. We never dictated the licence
 of our users,

Re: [E-devel] License questions

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:30:04 -0500 Nathan Ingersoll [EMAIL PROTECTED]
babbled:

 On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Jose Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   This issue is a long and complex one, and I really have no desire to
  get into the specifics of it. You and Nathan and Carsten and maybe many
  others, may feel comfortable with your decisions and choices, and that's
  fine with me :) I just happen not to share in this view and have made my
  own decision.
 
 Well, I wasn't going to feed the trolls, but since you called me out...
 
 I wasn't involved in the choice of licenses for E, but it was one of
 the things that attracted me to start using and developing for it. I
 chose the license for EWL to match the project and I don't have any
 regrets about doing so.
 
 As for your comments about this style of license being detrimental to
 the community, I haven't seen any justification for this concern.
 There are plenty of projects out there with similar licenses that are
 broadly adopted and supported, many of which have thriving
 communities. Don't forget that the Apache License is in a similar vein
 to BSD and MIT.

i agree. :)

-- 
- Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am --
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions

On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 00:41:51 (+1000),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:

 if this is for code going into an existing application and/or
 library he is right. code is to be the same license as the existing
 tree - if it is to be a different license - it cannot go into the
 tree. this is simply standard practice. if someone wants to create a
 new library, a new app (and by this i would define it as having its
 own configure.in/ac and build tree) then they may choose any license
 they like. if they make is a GPL library - then it will never be
 used by me as a basis for any other apps that are not GPL (as the
 GPL thus infects). if it's LGPL - it's moot as the license does not
 extend beyond the boundaries of that library. if its an app - it
 doesn't matter.

Assuming no one using another license ever wants to use that code.  If
Peter writes a really badass EWL app and LGPL's or GPL's it, that code
could not be used in E or Evas (unless Peter himself relicensed it)
without changing their licenses to LGPL/GPL.

The reason we originally required all items in the repo to be BSD
licensed (and yes, this decision was made a long time ago) was so that
code could be moved seamlessly between projects without having to
worry about relicensing or infecting other projects.

It sounds like you're rescinding that decision.  If so, that's fine,
but everyone needs to understand that code can't just move around at
will any more.  But it's your call.

 as i said - IMHO GPL is not right - it infects beyond the boundaries
 of its container. LGPL is acceptable.

Unfortunately, so does the LGPL.

Let's look at LGPLv2.1 first
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html).  According
to Section 2a, any work based on the Library (that is, anything
containing the Library's code, or any portion thereof, even just a
single function or code block cut-and-pasted in) MUST itself be a
LIBRARY.

Wait, what?  Yup, that's right.  The LGPL forbids you from snagging a
portion of code from an LGPL library and using it in a program (i.e.,
independent executable).  In fact, I can't find anything anywhere in
the LGPLv2.1 that allows it to be used for non-libraries.  LGPLv3
doesn't appear to have this limitation, since Library is defined as
any work covered by the LGPLv3.  But LGPLv2.1 only covers objects you
link with to create executables, not executables.  So LGPL code cannot
be used in applications (e.g., E itself).

Based on the clear language of the license, trying to apply it to a
software program (like OpenOffice.org) doesn't seem to make any sense,
since the legal term Library used throughout the license cannot apply
to something like Writer which you would never link against to form
executables.

The only provision in LGPLv2.1 that would allow someone to use LGPL
code in an application is Section 3 which allows the LGPL to be
replaced by the GPL at any time (and at version 2 or any later
version).  So in order to cut-paste-and-modify code from an LGPL
library into an application, the application MUST become GPL.

Obviously this does not include linking, but one of the primary
reasons we picked the license we did was so that our code could be
used in other software under other licenses (Apache, Artistic,
Mozilla, or yes, even the GPL).  Because of Sections 2c and 3, any
code coming from an LGPL project which is used in any way other than
linking can only be used in GPL/LGPL software.

Here's an example of the danger: Let's say EWL is BSD, and the authors
want to borrow a small bit of code from a large LGPL'd library
(without linking to it); EWL would have to be LGPL'd.  Worse yet, if
EWL wanted to borrow some code from E, and E were LGPL'd (which
really means GPL'd since it's not a library), EWL would have to become
GPL'd.  Then all software using EWL would be GPL'd.

So yes, even the LGPL can infect other code.  Just not as badly.

The LGPLv3, unlike the LGPLv2.1, is not a separate license in its own
right.  It is a set of addendums to the GPLv3 which provide additional
permissions above and beyond those granted by the GPL.  Having not
read the GPLv3 myself, I'm not prepared to discuss whether it's better
or worse.  The LGPLv3, as I said before, does seem to allow itself to
be applied to applications as well as libraries, so it would really
seem to be the only option for LGPL'ing the programs that link with
the EFL.

If all we care about is linking, then LGPL is just as fine as BSD.
But is that all we care about?

Michael

-- 
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov   Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
---
 Kyrie eleison down the road that I must travel.  Kyrie eleison
  through the darkness of the night.  Kyrie eleison; where I'm going,
  will you follow? -- Mr. Mister, Kyrie

-
This SF.Net email

Re: [E-devel] License questions

On Thursday, 24 July 2008, at 11:50:52 (-0300),
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:

 I must say I agree with you, I do think the license is something
 that matters and LGPL is better for something as EFL.

Better in what ways?  Other than simply being able to say we're
LGPL, how does it improve things?  What does the LGPL buy us that the
BSD license denies us?

So far the only concrete thing mentioned were Jose's missing
contributions.  :-)

 I also agree that we decided this 10 years ago and we'll not
 rethink is a bad thing,

I apologize if you inferred that from something I wrote, but I never
said that, nor do I think that.

It's hard to remember these days whether certain decisions were made
via e-mail or in person.  There aren't too many people still around
who remember when (and why) these decisions were made, or even that
they were made to begin with.  If they were made in person between
raster, mandrake, and myself (and possibly horms), the list is even
shorter. :)  Allowing raster to focus on code instead of administrivia
is in the best interest of the project as a whole, so I've always
tried to shoulder as much of that load as possible.

Over the years we've had a few occasions to rethink and rediscuss
licensing, but the decisions (and the reasons for them) really haven't
changed before.  If they do now, then they do, but it doesn't hurt
anyone to understand or be reminded of the original thinking on the
subject.

 damn, some of the guys that did this decision 10 years ago don't
 even write code nowadays,

I'm not sure if pointed statements like this one fall into the
flamewar category Jorge originally mentioned, but that's okay. :)

How much or how little the original decision makers contribute to E
currently doesn't really change the reasoning behind the decision or
its historic significance.  It also doesn't change the fact that
making project-level decisions ultimately falls to raster today just
as it did back then.

 One thing I'd like to see here is the opinion of those that do most
 of the code these days, guys like englebass, dj2, pfritz and
 raster. You wrote lots of code already, and continue to do, what do
 you think about relicensing the code under LGPL?

Relicensing requires buy-in (unanimous buy-in, in fact) from ALL
contributors, not just currently-active ones.  Licensing for new code
is a much simpler matter.

Michael

-- 
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov   Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
---
 I'm one of those mayors whose management style is to allow free and
  unlimited debate up to a point. -- Marion Barry

-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions

2008-07-24 Thread Jorge Luis Zapata Muga

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 00:41:51 (+1000),
 Carsten Haitzler wrote:

 if this is for code going into an existing application and/or
 library he is right. code is to be the same license as the existing
 tree - if it is to be a different license - it cannot go into the
 tree. this is simply standard practice. if someone wants to create a
 new library, a new app (and by this i would define it as having its
 own configure.in/ac and build tree) then they may choose any license
 they like. if they make is a GPL library - then it will never be
 used by me as a basis for any other apps that are not GPL (as the
 GPL thus infects). if it's LGPL - it's moot as the license does not
 extend beyond the boundaries of that library. if its an app - it
 doesn't matter.

 Assuming no one using another license ever wants to use that code.  If
 Peter writes a really badass EWL app and LGPL's or GPL's it, that code
 could not be used in E or Evas (unless Peter himself relicensed it)
 without changing their licenses to LGPL/GPL.

I have a question here, where is the authorship then? if i have an app
A licensed with L, i guess im free to relicense another (or the same)
app with license M right? and if so, being myself the author how can i
not put my own code into another app with license N? does the
authorship get relegated to the license itself?


 The reason we originally required all items in the repo to be BSD
 licensed (and yes, this decision was made a long time ago) was so that
 code could be moved seamlessly between projects without having to
 worry about relicensing or infecting other projects.

 It sounds like you're rescinding that decision.  If so, that's fine,
 but everyone needs to understand that code can't just move around at
 will any more.  But it's your call.

 as i said - IMHO GPL is not right - it infects beyond the boundaries
 of its container. LGPL is acceptable.

 Unfortunately, so does the LGPL.

 Let's look at LGPLv2.1 first
 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html).  According
 to Section 2a, any work based on the Library (that is, anything
 containing the Library's code, or any portion thereof, even just a
 single function or code block cut-and-pasted in) MUST itself be a
 LIBRARY.

 Wait, what?  Yup, that's right.  The LGPL forbids you from snagging a
 portion of code from an LGPL library and using it in a program (i.e.,
 independent executable).  In fact, I can't find anything anywhere in
 the LGPLv2.1 that allows it to be used for non-libraries.  LGPLv3
 doesn't appear to have this limitation, since Library is defined as
 any work covered by the LGPLv3.  But LGPLv2.1 only covers objects you
 link with to create executables, not executables.  So LGPL code cannot
 be used in applications (e.g., E itself).

 Based on the clear language of the license, trying to apply it to a
 software program (like OpenOffice.org) doesn't seem to make any sense,
 since the legal term Library used throughout the license cannot apply
 to something like Writer which you would never link against to form
 executables.

 The only provision in LGPLv2.1 that would allow someone to use LGPL
 code in an application is Section 3 which allows the LGPL to be
 replaced by the GPL at any time (and at version 2 or any later
 version).  So in order to cut-paste-and-modify code from an LGPL
 library into an application, the application MUST become GPL.

 Obviously this does not include linking, but one of the primary
 reasons we picked the license we did was so that our code could be
 used in other software under other licenses (Apache, Artistic,
 Mozilla, or yes, even the GPL).  Because of Sections 2c and 3, any
 code coming from an LGPL project which is used in any way other than
 linking can only be used in GPL/LGPL software.

 Here's an example of the danger: Let's say EWL is BSD, and the authors
 want to borrow a small bit of code from a large LGPL'd library
 (without linking to it); EWL would have to be LGPL'd.  Worse yet, if
 EWL wanted to borrow some code from E, and E were LGPL'd (which
 really means GPL'd since it's not a library), EWL would have to become
 GPL'd.  Then all software using EWL would be GPL'd.

 So yes, even the LGPL can infect other code.  Just not as badly.

 The LGPLv3, unlike the LGPLv2.1, is not a separate license in its own
 right.  It is a set of addendums to the GPLv3 which provide additional
 permissions above and beyond those granted by the GPL.  Having not
 read the GPLv3 myself, I'm not prepared to discuss whether it's better
 or worse.  The LGPLv3, as I said before, does seem to allow itself to
 be applied to applications as well as libraries, so it would really
 seem to be the only option for LGPL'ing the programs that link with
 the EFL.

 If all we care about is linking, then LGPL is just as fine as BSD.
 But is that all we care about?

 Michael

 --
 Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)

Re: [E-devel] License questions

2008-07-24 Thread Jorge Luis Zapata Muga

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Thursday, 24 July 2008, at 19:25:42 (+0200),
 Vincent Torri wrote:

 I've learned a lot about the licences reading these mails, and it seems
 that the fact is not such licence is a hindrance but such licence can
 give us developpers. That's different. So, from what i've understood, wrt
 companies :

 1) either with stay with BSD, and only the companies that accept to work
 with code licenced under BSD would eventually share code with us

 2) either we switch to, for example LGPL, or other similar licence (I was
 told that MPL is not that bad), and then companies that accept to share
 code with LGPL AND BSD licenced code would eventually help us. The
 difference can be great.

 So if we want to have more than 5 devs on the core efl, we should
 seriously discuss about which licence to use.

 I dispute the belief that license is the key (or even one of the key)
 factors in the success of an open source software project.  There are
 other reasons besides license as to why the previous example project
 comparisons came out the way they did (like continuous, ongoing
 financial backing), and I can provide examples of GPL/LGPL projects
 that have failed against their BSD-licensed counterparts (Berlin) and
 of successful BSD-licensed projects (Vorbis).

 The only way to scientifically assert that LGPL  BSD for project
 success is to have two identical codebases, one under each license,
 and see which one wins.  That would, of course, be somewhat
 silly...but that's the only way to control your experimental
 variables.

 I can also point to reasons why E hasn't been used (or has been
 replaced) in certain commercial ventures, and I'm know at least a
 couple people on this list who could do the same.  So far I don't know
 a single company or organization which has cited license as their
 reason for moving away from E.

 And without really looking too hard, I was able to easily find articles
 about actual, decent-sized public companies (not the least of which
 being Apple) who chose BSD-licensed software because it's MORE
 business-friendly:

 http://www.bsdatwork.com/2002/01/03/source_of_mac_os_x/
 http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2001/04/is_bsd_taking_the_spotlight_aw.html

 The bottom line is that you'll find developers who refuse to code *GPL
 software just like you'll find those who refuse to code BSD/MIT/X
 software.  And like it or not, their reasoning almost always has
 something to do with how they define freedom and whose freedoms
 they're trying to protect.


Well, this thread has of course mutated from its original form, but
has raised several good opinions, and in fact it has turned into what
do we do internally with the efl.

If you think that a project is successful based on how many companies
have used your software then of course actually licensing your sw is
not a matter just give it to the world, bsd license is the most free
license (afaik) that you can have and of course you'll find thousands
of projects that are out there being closed or open that use your
software, so your meaning of successful is achieved. So for companies
that actually want to use someone else code (because of a technical
decision or not), and dont want or can't send something back (code,
money, whatever) to the author then bsd is the best option. And that
is indeed what happense on many on the companies that use bsd code,
they dont give back code, of course they are not obligated to do so,
its your license that allows that, but is that what we want?

If your meaning of successful is on how many developers are out there
on bsd or *gpl projects, i really dont know the statistics, but i
think gpl is beyond, might be something related with the media, maybe,
but the number of developers is something we need.

But as my initial question, what happens with companies that actually
want to give something back, that believe in the concept of community
but dont want other  companies that dont share the same vision as you
to use the code to make profit, close source, etc? i think that for
that case (and is not a small group of companies that are working like
that right now) bsd is not an option.

I think we should take this topic in the sense of what do we want or
expect from the e project. So for me and my vision of how e should be,
i want e to be open source, but i want all of its derivative work to
be also open source, i dont want to code on this project for the next
5 years and suddenly the number of developers (which is small) goes to
zero, a company takes our code, close source it, and then you see your
code on the next cell phone you buy, it will be frustrating. I think
many of us want to make a living from it, at the end is our effort and
sacrifice that is in discussion here.


So, what's other opinions on how they would like e to be?

 Michael

 --
 Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Linux Server/Cluster

Re: [E-devel] License questions

2008-07-24 Thread Sevcsik András

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
  On Thursday, 24 July 2008, at 19:25:42 (+0200),
  Vincent Torri wrote:
 
  I've learned a lot about the licences reading these mails, and it seems
  that the fact is not such licence is a hindrance but such licence can
  give us developpers. That's different. So, from what i've understood,
 wrt
  companies :
 
  1) either with stay with BSD, and only the companies that accept to work
  with code licenced under BSD would eventually share code with us
 
  2) either we switch to, for example LGPL, or other similar licence (I
 was
  told that MPL is not that bad), and then companies that accept to share
  code with LGPL AND BSD licenced code would eventually help us. The
  difference can be great.
 
  So if we want to have more than 5 devs on the core efl, we should
  seriously discuss about which licence to use.
 
  I dispute the belief that license is the key (or even one of the key)
  factors in the success of an open source software project.  There are
  other reasons besides license as to why the previous example project
  comparisons came out the way they did (like continuous, ongoing
  financial backing), and I can provide examples of GPL/LGPL projects
  that have failed against their BSD-licensed counterparts (Berlin) and
  of successful BSD-licensed projects (Vorbis).
 
  The only way to scientifically assert that LGPL  BSD for project
  success is to have two identical codebases, one under each license,
  and see which one wins.  That would, of course, be somewhat
  silly...but that's the only way to control your experimental
  variables.
 
  I can also point to reasons why E hasn't been used (or has been
  replaced) in certain commercial ventures, and I'm know at least a
  couple people on this list who could do the same.  So far I don't know
  a single company or organization which has cited license as their
  reason for moving away from E.
 
  And without really looking too hard, I was able to easily find articles
  about actual, decent-sized public companies (not the least of which
  being Apple) who chose BSD-licensed software because it's MORE
  business-friendly:
 
  http://www.bsdatwork.com/2002/01/03/source_of_mac_os_x/
 
 http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2001/04/is_bsd_taking_the_spotlight_aw.html
 
  The bottom line is that you'll find developers who refuse to code *GPL
  software just like you'll find those who refuse to code BSD/MIT/X
  software.  And like it or not, their reasoning almost always has
  something to do with how they define freedom and whose freedoms
  they're trying to protect.
 

 Well, this thread has of course mutated from its original form, but
 has raised several good opinions, and in fact it has turned into what
 do we do internally with the efl.

 If you think that a project is successful based on how many companies
 have used your software then of course actually licensing your sw is
 not a matter just give it to the world, bsd license is the most free
 license (afaik) that you can have and of course you'll find thousands
 of projects that are out there being closed or open that use your
 software, so your meaning of successful is achieved. So for companies
 that actually want to use someone else code (because of a technical
 decision or not), and dont want or can't send something back (code,
 money, whatever) to the author then bsd is the best option. And that
 is indeed what happense on many on the companies that use bsd code,
 they dont give back code, of course they are not obligated to do so,
 its your license that allows that, but is that what we want?

 If your meaning of successful is on how many developers are out there
 on bsd or *gpl projects, i really dont know the statistics, but i
 think gpl is beyond, might be something related with the media, maybe,
 but the number of developers is something we need.

 But as my initial question, what happens with companies that actually
 want to give something back, that believe in the concept of community
 but dont want other  companies that dont share the same vision as you
 to use the code to make profit, close source, etc? i think that for
 that case (and is not a small group of companies that are working like
 that right now) bsd is not an option.

 I think we should take this topic in the sense of what do we want or
 expect from the e project. So for me and my vision of how e should be,
 i want e to be open source, but i want all of its derivative work to
 be also open source, i dont want to code on this project for the next
 5 years and suddenly the number of developers (which is small) goes to
 zero, a company takes our code, close source it, and then you see your
 code on the next cell phone you buy, it will be frustrating.


Personally, i wouldn't be frustrated, I'd be happy and proud that my code
has the quality to be used on a

Re: [E-devel] License questions

On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 01:53:15 (+0200),
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:

  Assuming no one using another license ever wants to use that code.
  If Peter writes a really badass EWL app and LGPL's or GPL's it,
  that code could not be used in E or Evas (unless Peter himself
  relicensed it) without changing their licenses to LGPL/GPL.
 
 I have a question here, where is the authorship then? if i have an app
 A licensed with L, i guess im free to relicense another (or the same)
 app with license M right? and if so, being myself the author how can i
 not put my own code into another app with license N? does the
 authorship get relegated to the license itself?

As I said, Peter himself is the only one who could either commit that
code to E or grant permission in writing for it to be done.  That one
person then becomes the roadblock -- what if he gets busy?  What if he
wins the lottery? gets hit by a bus?

The point is, it shouldn't be necessary for something like that to
have to happen in order to move code around in the project's own
repository, particularly as often as things get re-shuffled around
here. :)

Michael

-- 
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov   Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
---
 You're just an empty cage, girl, if you kill the bird.
   -- Tori Amos, Crucify

-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions

On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 01:53:24 (+0200),
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:

 Well, this thread has of course mutated from its original form, but
 has raised several good opinions, and in fact it has turned into
 what do we do internally with the efl.

I tried to point people back to your original question, but I seem to
have failed.  :-]

 If you think that a project is successful based on how many
 companies have used your software then of course actually licensing
 your sw is not a matter just give it to the world, bsd license is
 the most free license (afaik) that you can have and of course you'll
 find thousands of projects that are out there being closed or open
 that use your software, so your meaning of successful is
 achieved. So for companies that actually want to use someone else
 code (because of a technical decision or not), and dont want or
 can't send something back (code, money, whatever) to the author then
 bsd is the best option. And that is indeed what happense on many on
 the companies that use bsd code, they dont give back code, of course
 they are not obligated to do so, its your license that allows that,
 but is that what we want?

You make a good point about how we measure success in terms of the
previous assertions about one license or the other making us more
successful.  You're absolutely right.  And everything you said about
the BSD license is also completely true and fair.

As for the final question, is that what we want?  From my
perspective, it goes back to what Nathan said:  Parts that are
directly a *part of* EFL are almost certainly going to be given back
because the cost of maintaining a fork (or a parallel LoD) is not
insignificant.  Works based on (i.e., making use of) the EFL which are
separate, independent entities are almost certainly not going to be
given back anyway because that's from where the company's profit is
derived.

 If your meaning of successful is on how many developers are out
 there on bsd or *gpl projects, i really dont know the statistics,
 but i think gpl is beyond, might be something related with the
 media, maybe, but the number of developers is something we need.

I'm not sure the simple quantity of developers on BSD- versus
GPL-licensed projects is the right metric; a developer working on a
GPL project may or may not be willing to contribute to a BSD project,
and vice versa.  Same with companies.  Some companies like the GPL
because it prevents competitors from co-opting, closed-sourcing, and
extending their code.  (This is the argument that Active Directory
might not exist if Kerberos and OpenLDAP had been GPL'd instead of
BSD'd.  Then again, AD being based primarily on open standards helped
quite a bit with creating free software that talks to AD...a task
which would've been much harder had it been completely opaque and
proprietary.)  Other companies prefer the BSD license because promotes
wider use and does not require them to give up their intellectual
property rights.

 But as my initial question, what happens with companies that
 actually want to give something back, that believe in the concept of
 community but dont want other companies that dont share the same
 vision as you to use the code to make profit, close source, etc? i
 think that for that case (and is not a small group of companies that
 are working like that right now) bsd is not an option.

When you release something under the BSD license, it is always under
the BSD license.  In order to closed-source it, they would have to
make extensive modifications and provide significant value-add;
otherwise, no one would use it when there's a freely-available BSD
alternative.

Active Directory is the only example I can think of right now where
somebody did that to great success, and the success of AD was not due
to AD itself, but rather the GUI tools they provided that made it
easy (for some definition of that word) to set up and manage.

X is actually a very good example of the opposite happening -- all the
major UNIX vendors cooperated and collaborated to the mutual benefit
of all.  They did the same with CDE (taking HP's VUE front-end
combined with Sun's tooltalk backend and making a desktop that ran on
all 3 major UNIXes).

 I think we should take this topic in the sense of what do we want or
 expect from the e project. So for me and my vision of how e should
 be, i want e to be open source, but i want all of its derivative
 work to be also open source, i dont want to code on this project for
 the next 5 years and suddenly the number of developers (which is
 small) goes to zero, a company takes our code, close source it, and
 then you see your code on the next cell phone you buy, it will be
 frustrating. I think many of us want to make a living from it, at
 the end is our effort and sacrifice that is in discussion here.

Would it really frustrate you to see code you wrote ending up on a
device lots of people use?  Or would the frustrating part be the fact
that they're making money

Re: [E-devel] License questions

2008-07-24 Thread dan sinclair


On 24-Jul-08, at 5:26 PM, Peter Wehrfritz wrote:

 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri schrieb:
 One thing I'd like to see here is the opinion of those that do most  
 of
 the code these days, guys like englebass, dj2, pfritz and raster. You
 wrote lots of code already, and continue to do, what do you think
 about relicensing the code under LGPL?



 I'm not an author of one of the core libs, but since you are asking  
 me,
 here is what i think about it.

 I personally don't like the LGPL, because IMHO it doesn't really work
 for applications. It sounds somewhat odd if you read the license for  
 an
 application and they only talk about libraries. And I strongly believe
 that one should use the same license for applications and libraries.  
 It
 happens often that you move some code from a lib to an app and vice
 versa, or you turn a whole app into a library. So maybe something like
 MPL would be better, but afaik you get with the MPL troubles with the
 debian folks. Don't know how it is with the CPL.

 I still prefer the 3-clause BSD license, I code, because it is fun. If
 some makes money with my code, it doesn't change the fact that i had  
 fun
 while writing it and he also doesn't steal my code. I still have my  
 code!

 Besides that believing that a company contributes to your LGPLed
 library/application because it uses/modifies your code is wrong.  
 Take a
 look on the khtml history and you'll see that using the lgpl doesn't
 implicate or ensure that you'll receive useful patches.

 At the end, this decision is not up to me.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

(Oh, and Peter, you are listed as a main author of Ewl (for almost a  
year and a half, heh))

dan



-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions

Ah yes, the licensing issue. Is it something which has helped or hindered
the E project? Who knows. There are several other factors besides that one
which
one could point to as well, it's possible those may even be intertwined with
this
one... Again, who really knows for certain.

One could try and compare the 'success' of similar LGPL vs. MIT/BSD
licensed
projects... perhaps the Linux Kernel vs. other MIT/BSD-licensed kernels? Perhaps
in the gfx world, things like X say? Ummm, no real LGPL equivalent to X, so we
might only consider whether X has received as much help/resources as similarly
important projects -- I'd say it falls pretty short there. Perhaps compare the
success of GPL/LGPL vs. MIT/BSD licensed gui toolkits/frameworks? Ummm, I guess
Mono and E's, would fall in the latter camp, but most others in the former.

What are the reasons people prefer one type of license over another.. and
does that affect the number or quality of contributors or contributions? Again,
who knows. I don't like licenses in the software world - I think it's abhorrent.
But unfortunately, their existance and that of patents is very real so both
corps
and individuals have to make a decision.
Personally, I'd *never* contribute anything that I'd consider to be a
truly
serious, dedicated, body of time and work to a project that wan't LGPL or GPL.
But that's just me.

Free information on the best Web Hosting. Click Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nBPXZ6KJxUTKFSb5y4g2Obg6FGZwZ05U4Fu9zO7DVkFPyHm/

Re: [E-devel] License questions

2008-07-22 Thread Cedric BAIL

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Jose Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  What are the reasons people prefer one type of license over another.. and
 does that affect the number or quality of contributors or contributions? 
 Again,
 who knows. I don't like licenses in the software world - I think it's 
 abhorrent.
 But unfortunately, their existance and that of patents is very real so both 
 corps
 and individuals have to make a decision.
  Personally, I'd *never* contribute anything that I'd consider to be a 
 truly
 serious, dedicated, body of time and work to a project that wan't LGPL or GPL.
 But that's just me.

I can share my experience too on this subject. In my previous company,
it was a problem to contribute code back to a BSD licenced software
(and GPL too). The lawyer and all the intellectual property guys would
forbid us to give back code under this licence. In fact, only LGPL
would have been a solution. That was the reason, why they choose GTK
instead of anything else and without any technical consideration.
  To fix this problem, I changed for a smarter company. But that's just me :-)

-- 
Cedric BAIL

-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions

   Jorge wrote:

 Hi all,

 I dont pretend to start a flamewar, if you do, please dont answer this
 thread.The thing is that right now, the EFL has arrived to a place
 where different companies are using this software, and several of us
 are working on a company using the efl (raster, gustavo, cedric, me,
 anyone else?).

 From a closed source company POV, BSD license is great because they
 dont need to give us anything back (fancypants example?); but for
 companies that do want to build an opensource initiative based on the
 EFL, BSD is not so great, because their code can be stolen from
 others; so whats your opinion on this? how to achieve an open source
   

  They're not 'stealing' anything. The code was given to them to do with
as they see fit under the terms allowed by the license. And in the case of a
BSD/MIT style license they can use it directly or indirectly (among other 
things)
but aren't required to contribute back anything, or make original source or any
changes available to anyone if they so choose.

  Many companies and many individuals thus believe these licenses to be
unacceptable as a target for serious public/community contribution, each for
their reasons. It's certainly not a license I feel fully comfortable with.


 compromise and still be able to use EFL and develop for it?. In my
 opinion building a company around BSD license is not an option for the
 market, but GPL'ing libraries is not good as it leaves all the BSD ppl
 away, maybe LGPL?

 Thanks
   


Click here to find the right stock, bonds, and mutual funds.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mJ0S7GH7enIkIzk8S4KQfKbX7cTk67Zap7TVuuFaJDun7fz/

-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions

On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 08:33:13 (-0400),
Jose Gonzalez wrote:

 Personally, I'd *never* contribute anything that I'd consider to be
 a truly serious, dedicated, body of time and work to a project that
 wan't LGPL or GPL.  But that's just me.

Fortunately most are more open-minded than that.  :)

 They're not 'stealing' anything. The code was given to them to do
 with as they see fit under the terms allowed by the license. And in
 the case of a BSD/MIT style license they can use it directly or
 indirectly (among other things) but aren't required to contribute
 back anything, or make original source or any changes available to
 anyone if they so choose.

Perhaps a better term would be leeching.

As with the law, there is the letter of the license and the spirit
of the license.  While you are correct about the letter of the
license, the clear and obvious spirit of BSD licensing is free and
unrestricted sharing which bypasses this whole ridiculous license
debate quite nicely.

Furthermore, there are specific requirements associated with the
license which are sometimes not followed:  the advertising clause.
And if they don't follow *that*, they *are* stealing.

Having said all that, here's the bottom line:  When we first discussed
licensing at length, somewhere around 1997 or 1998, we wanted a
license that encapsulated our feelings on the subject:  We don't give
a rat's ass what you do with this code so long as you give credit
where it's due.  The BSD license with the advertising clause was the
most free and open license we could find which still required proper
attribution.

Last time I spoke with raster about it, he still felt the same way.
External projects and products, especially those run by commercial
entities, are likely and welcome to use the license of their own
choosing, but we ask that all contributions to E and official E
subprojects be licensed under the same BSD+AC license as E itself.

Maybe that will change someday.  Who knows.  But last time I went
earnestly looking for a better license, I couldn't find one.  They all
fell short in some significant way.  (Or many ways, in the case of the
GPL...ironically the least free and most binding-and-gagging license
out there, short of closed source.)

Michael

-- 
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov   Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
---
 Know that I love you, and no matter what, I'll see you again.
   -- Brian Sweeney, passenger on a hijacked airliner, to his wife

-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions

   Gustavo wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
 Hi all,

 I dont pretend to start a flamewar, if you do, please dont answer this
 thread.The thing is that right now, the EFL has arrived to a place
 where different companies are using this software, and several of us
 are working on a company using the efl (raster, gustavo, cedric, me,
 anyone else?).

 From a closed source company POV, BSD license is great because they
 dont need to give us anything back (fancypants example?); but for
 companies that do want to build an opensource initiative based on the
 EFL, BSD is not so great, because their code can be stolen from
 others; so whats your opinion on this? how to achieve an open source
 compromise and still be able to use EFL and develop for it?. In my
 opinion building a company around BSD license is not an option for the
 market, but GPL'ing libraries is not good as it leaves all the BSD ppl
 away, maybe LGPL?
 

 ProFUSION will release its code under LGPL (guarana and possible
 others to come). And yes, we think just like you, but the code is
 there and the majority of work was done by people that like it, so we
 don't care that much, since even if we start to do lots of work, it is
 still little compared to the whole codebase...

   
  I'm not sure that the 'majority of the work' was done by people who *like*
that license, not for every sub-project.. or even if partly so, whether that 
will
continue to be the case -- or more to the point, whether any real increase in
the growth and evolution of the project will happen under such a license.
  Often, I saw some people react with hostility to any attempt to even bring
up the issue, and basically deliver a wide-ranging ultimatum that no code was
ever going to be accepted into E's cvs unless it was under a BSD/MIT license --
consider Michael Jenning's recent remark:
  Contributions which become part of E or the EFL must be BSD licensed

  I'm not sure what kind of 'authority' he feels he has to make such a 
statement,
but it certainly doesn't reflect anything I feel comfortable with, and will 
limit
my contributions to this project, for purely personal reasons -- even though I
like many other aspects of it, this one just doesn't work for me... never has
and never will.




Click here for easy weight loss help and diet information.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nr7ZwU3JPf9tdIn9GWTfOPamAwWEPA3Rx7z8TvjBhqKH36s/

-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions

Michael Jennings wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 08:33:13 (-0400),
Jose Gonzalez wrote:

Personally, I'd *never* contribute anything that I'd consider to be
a truly serious, dedicated, body of time and work to a project that
wan't LGPL or GPL. But that's just me.

Fortunately most are more open-minded than that. :)

Good for you! :)

They're not 'stealing' anything. The code was given to them to do
with as they see fit under the terms allowed by the license. And in
the case of a BSD/MIT style license they can use it directly or
indirectly (among other things) but aren't required to contribute
back anything, or make original source or any changes available to
anyone if they so choose.

Perhaps a better term would be leeching.

As with the law, there is the letter of the license and the spirit
of the license. While you are correct about the letter of the
license, the clear and obvious spirit of BSD licensing is free and
unrestricted sharing which bypasses this whole ridiculous license
debate quite nicely.

Furthermore, there are specific requirements associated with the
license which are sometimes not followed: the advertising clause.
And if they don't follow *that*, they *are* stealing.

Having said all that, here's the bottom line: When we first discussed
licensing at length, somewhere around 1997 or 1998, we wanted a
license that encapsulated our feelings on the subject: We don't give
a rat's ass what you do with this code so long as you give credit
where it's due. The BSD license with the advertising clause was the
most free and open license we could find which still required proper
attribution.

Last time I spoke with raster about it, he still felt the same way.
External projects and products, especially those run by commercial
entities, are likely and welcome to use the license of their own
choosing, but we ask that all contributions to E and official E
subprojects be licensed under the same BSD+AC license as E itself.

Maybe that will change someday. Who knows. But last time I went
earnestly looking for a better license, I couldn't find one. They all
fell short in some significant way. (Or many ways, in the case of the
GPL...ironically the least free and most binding-and-gagging license
out there, short of closed source.)

Michael

This issue is a long and complex one, and I really have no desire to
get into the specifics of it. You and Nathan and Carsten and maybe many others,
may feel comfortable with your decisions and choices, and that's fine with
me :) I just happen not to share in this view and have made my own decision.

Explore all of Europe's beauty! Click now for great vacation packages!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nKHMPrUmz1SiB7Mvuu2CLt9TX16ZHsmdgDSFX1wjKn8iB5W/

Re: [E-devel] License questions

On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 13:20:07 (-0400),
Jose Gonzalez wrote:

 I'm not sure that the 'majority of the work' was done by people who
 *like* that license, not for every sub-project.. or even if partly
 so, whether that will continue to be the case -- or more to the
 point, whether any real increase in the growth and evolution of the
 project will happen under such a license.

This is pure FUD.  Numerous large and successful projects use BSD and
related licenses, not the least of which is...BSD!  BSD-licensed code
is also in ever major UNIX kernel and operating system out there, even
the SvR4 derivatives.

 Often, I saw some people react with hostility to any attempt to even
 bring up the issue, and basically deliver a wide-ranging ultimatum
 that no code was ever going to be accepted into E's cvs unless it
 was under a BSD/MIT license -- consider Michael Jenning's recent
 remark: Contributions which become part of E or the EFL must be BSD
 licensed

Most any other license would attempt to infect the rest of the
project.

 I'm not sure what kind of 'authority' he feels he has to make such a
 statement, but it certainly doesn't reflect anything I feel
 comfortable with, and will limit my contributions to this project,
 for purely personal reasons -- even though I like many other aspects
 of it, this one just doesn't work for me... never has and never
 will.

The only advantage that the GPL has over the BSD license is that it
forces all derivatives to be GPL'd, meaning that nobody can create a
closed-source project based on it.  The only reason I can think of to
not want that to happen is that you don't want anyone else making
money off it (because really, if they're not making money, and you're
already getting credit, what else is there?).  If someone else manages
to make money off your work that you contributed freely, that doesn't
actually *hurt* you.  Perhaps makes you feel taken advantage of, or
envious, but it doesn't actually damage you.

I've struggled with this before myself.  I know how it feels to have
someone else making money off your work and not at least having the
decency to share the wealth.  But I certainly don't see that as a
valid justification for hoarding your code or withholding your
contributions from the rest of the community.  (Who is the worse
person -- the one who is selfish with money, or the one who is selfish
with code?)

Michael

-- 
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov   Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
---
 [Heather Graham] is the new I-would-run-over-my-best-friend-in-a-
  hummer-to-get-next-to-her girl.-- Claude Nobler

-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions

Michael Jennings wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 13:20:07 (-0400),
Jose Gonzalez wrote:

I'm not sure that the 'majority of the work' was done by people who
*like* that license, not for every sub-project.. or even if partly
so, whether that will continue to be the case -- or more to the
point, whether any real increase in the growth and evolution of the
project will happen under such a license.

This is pure FUD. Numerous large and successful projects use BSD and
related licenses, not the least of which is...BSD! BSD-licensed code
is also in ever major UNIX kernel and operating system out there, even
the SvR4 derivatives.

Pure FUD? I'm sorry, but I have respectfully disagree about it being any
kind of 'FUD'.

Often, I saw some people react with hostility to any attempt to even
bring up the issue, and basically deliver a wide-ranging ultimatum
that no code was ever going to be accepted into E's cvs unless it
was under a BSD/MIT license -- consider Michael Jenning's recent
remark: Contributions which become part of E or the EFL must be BSD
licensed

Most any other license would attempt to infect the rest of the
project.

I'm not sure what kind of 'authority' he feels he has to make such a
statement, but it certainly doesn't reflect anything I feel
comfortable with, and will limit my contributions to this project,
for purely personal reasons -- even though I like many other aspects
of it, this one just doesn't work for me... never has and never
will.

The only advantage that the GPL has over the BSD license is that it
forces all derivatives to be GPL'd, meaning that nobody can create a
closed-source project based on it. The only reason I can think of to
not want that to happen is that you don't want anyone else making
money off it (because really, if they're not making money, and you're
already getting credit, what else is there?). If someone else manages
to make money off your work that you contributed freely, that doesn't
actually *hurt* you. Perhaps makes you feel taken advantage of, or
envious, but it doesn't actually damage you.

I've struggled with this before myself. I know how it feels to have
someone else making money off your work and not at least having the
decency to share the wealth. But I certainly don't see that as a
valid justification for hoarding your code or withholding your
contributions from the rest of the community. (Who is the worse
person -- the one who is selfish with money, or the one who is selfish
with code?)

Michael

Free information on the best Web Hosting. Click Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nBPWxFX5AFhdBtkuYKwACa5giqTTkLRTBO9rSsxSiQd3fK4/

Re: [E-devel] License questions

On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 13:30:42 (-0400),
Jose Gonzalez wrote:

 This issue is a long and complex one, and I really have no desire to
 get into the specifics of it.

Then stop replying! :P

 You and Nathan and Carsten and maybe many others, may feel
 comfortable with your decisions and choices, and that's fine with me
 :) I just happen not to share in this view and have made my own
 decision.

Other than to avail us of your keen grasp of the obvious (Different
people have different opinions.  Got it.  Thanks.), I really don't
see the point in your going on and on about this. :P

IRC is already filling up with people who want this discussion to go
away.  (I count at least 3 in the past 90 seconds.)  So could we
please just agree to disagree and stop polluting the list?

I could be wrong, but I interpreted Jorge's original e-mail as asking,
What's the best way to build a business model around contributions
to, and projects based on, BSD-licensed code? and not, How can we
change the E license to be more business-friendly?  If I've
misinterpreted the original question, hopefully he will be willing to
clarify, but otherwise a discussion of BSD licensing in general and
E's license in particular is not really going to help him.

I hope somewhere in this mess, Jorge got his question answered, or at
least got some ideas.

Michael

-- 
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov   Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
---
 If the President knowingly lies to the American people, he should
  immediately resign. -- Bill Clinton in 1974

-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions

Michael wrote:

Most any other license would attempt to infect the rest of the
project.

That certainly seems to be your 'view' of things, and from your
perspective
it's no doubt quite true.

You're an intelligent, thoughtful person Michael, but I'm no dummy nor was
I born yesterday. Rest assured, as much thought as you've given things over
this,
it's likely that I have as well.
I could care less about people 'making money' from any code that I might
contribute, BSD or LGPL or whatnot. It just doesn't matter to me one bit. I'm
more concerned with the impact that I think BSD/MIT style licenses have, both
on the large scale of things, and for this project as well, and I don't want to
'contribute' to that system in any serious way.
We can argue/discuss/debate this all day, but in the end you'll have to
agree that I'm not going to change your mind (nor do I want to try), and
conversely.

Click now for accounting software that's a huge plus!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3njNqlAbQA8PeMzioHtmeX6hideYdqD7kBV5n1nd1djkFQc4/

Re: [E-devel] License questions

   Michael wrote:

 On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 13:30:42 (-0400),
 Jose Gonzalez wrote:

   
 This issue is a long and complex one, and I really have no desire to
 get into the specifics of it.
 

 Then stop replying! :P
   

   You asked.


Discount Online Trading - Click Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mJ8X5cyJOtHpleFS9QL4FmGNRNaCgIErE2dZ5b6P3yYrJeo/

-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions

2008-07-22 Thread Nathan Ingersoll

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Jose Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  This issue is a long and complex one, and I really have no desire to
 get into the specifics of it. You and Nathan and Carsten and maybe many 
 others,
 may feel comfortable with your decisions and choices, and that's fine with
 me :) I just happen not to share in this view and have made my own decision.

Well, I wasn't going to feed the trolls, but since you called me out...

I wasn't involved in the choice of licenses for E, but it was one of
the things that attracted me to start using and developing for it. I
chose the license for EWL to match the project and I don't have any
regrets about doing so.

As for your comments about this style of license being detrimental to
the community, I haven't seen any justification for this concern.
There are plenty of projects out there with similar licenses that are
broadly adopted and supported, many of which have thriving
communities. Don't forget that the Apache License is in a similar vein
to BSD and MIT.

-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions

Nathan wrote:

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Jose Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

This issue is a long and complex one, and I really have no desire to
get into the specifics of it. You and Nathan and Carsten and maybe many
others,
may feel comfortable with your decisions and choices, and that's fine with
me :) I just happen not to share in this view and have made my own decision.

Well, I wasn't going to feed the trolls, but since you called me out...

I'm not sure just what feed the trolls means, but if it's another
way to call people names in order to silence or undermine a different
view or opinion, then it's a good start to your reply.

I wasn't involved in the choice of licenses for E, but it was one of
the things that attracted me to start using and developing for it. I
chose the license for EWL to match the project and I don't have any
regrets about doing so.

As for your comments about this style of license being detrimental to
the community, I haven't seen any justification for this concern.
There are plenty of projects out there with similar licenses that are
broadly adopted and supported, many of which have thriving
communities. Don't forget that the Apache License is in a similar vein
to BSD and MIT.

Yes, the Apache license would be another one, mostly used by the
Apache project. I believe a large amount of which was funded by gov and
universities in its early stages, not sure though. Interestingly, a lot
of the sub-projects under that umbrella depend on Java, which up to now
was rather closed - now LGPL. I wonder if that would have any impact on
subsequent work there.

In any case Nathan, as I've stated before, if you feel comfortable
with such licenses, then good for you. I just don't share that view.
I see them as little more than clever scams, purporting 'true' freedom.
If *true* freedom is what you want, then don't license your work.

Compare Cell Phone Carriers- Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oHH60W1EVnZBGsa6SFDxS2DmmCIcJ7hrPJ4MOUUAxrL1Pmc/

Re: [E-devel] License questions

On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 19:32:21 (-0400),
Jose Gonzalez wrote:

 In any case Nathan, as I've stated before, if you feel comfortable
 with such licenses, then good for you. I just don't share that view.

We get it.  You've said it half a dozen times already...and virtually
nothing else.

This entire conversation has deviated way off-topic and needs to
stop.  If someone wants to address Jorge's original question, please
do so.  Otherwise, please help us get back on track by not continuing
this irrelevant tangent.

Thanks,
Michael

-- 
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov   Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
---
 Come stand a little bit closer.  Breathe in and get a bit higher.
  You'll never know what hit you when I get to you.
-- Savage Garden, I Want You

-
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=100url=/
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Re: [E-devel] License questions