On 30/07/18 18:50, Andrew Williams wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks. I think it's best not to consider the derivitive works angle as it
> could also be argued that the EFL were derived from Enlightenment work in
> part, and that is BSD too.
>
> Either way it sounds like my understanding was correct -
Hi,
Thanks. I think it's best not to consider the derivitive works angle as it
could also be argued that the EFL were derived from Enlightenment work in
part, and that is BSD too.
Either way it sounds like my understanding was correct - the LGPL is there
intentionally and will override the BSD
Hi all,
I also remember the eina lgpl being intentional, one of the reasons is
that it might be possible to argue that to the rest of the efl
libraries, eina / efl (also lgpl) are more then just libraries that the
rest of efl uses and therefore the rest of the efl libraries should be
treated as
Hi Stephen,
I was probably over-simplifying but in the context where static-linking is
required then the LGPL forces certain behaviours which the BSD does not.
My understanding is that this applies to anyone linking statically to any
part of EFL as they (mostly) all depend on Eina?
Reading from
This was a huge argument when Eina came into EFL. IIRC the profusion guys
that wrote Eina were adamant on it being LGPL and even looked into the
possibility of trying to make the rest of EFL LGPL. Of course getting all
the author permissions to do so would be impossible so that was nixed. So
the
Hi,
I was checking out the situation regarding licensing and read the current
state in https://github.com/Enlightenment/efl/blob/master/README. As far as
I can tell the library at the bottom of our dependency tree, Eina, is LGPL
whereas most others are BSD - which includes the main Efl library.
