On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:22:29 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know :), I thought we are talking about the core-libs, of course,
I hope that ewl will stay under the BSD license.
There is no reason that all the libs / apps move to another licence.
Actually there is a
Quoting David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:22:29 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know :), I thought we are talking about the core-libs, of course,
I hope that ewl will stay under the BSD license.
There is no reason that all the libs / apps move
I think this discussion has dragged on long enough. There is clearly
not a consensus on the list, which we should require for any decision
of this magnitude. License flamewars are infamous for draining
developer motivation on a project as well as burning up precious time
for all team members. As
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:37:48 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:22:29 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The recent mail out to
EFL authors proves that some will not agree, and that some are not
even
Michael Jennings 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
On 27-Jul-08, at 5:54 AM, Jose Gonzalez wrote:
As you never cared about building a large community of foss
developers,
you have thus helped to create a largely dysfunctional project
starved of
resources. That's as much a part of E's legacy as anything good it
may have
stood for
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:53:15 +0200 Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
[EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
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
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:08:03 -0700 Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
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)
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Vincent Torri [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
dan sinclair schrieb:
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
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
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
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:03 AM, Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 01:53:24 (+0200),
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
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
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:03 AM, Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 15:49:01 (+0200),
Cedric BAIL wrote:
That's just wrong.
No, it's not just wrong. You may not agree with it, but that
doesn't make it wrong, particularly if you don't offer any
counterexamples or evidence to prove it.
Maintaining a fork is in my opinion completely
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 15:56:20 (+0200),
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
I think all the above points are frustrating , why? simply because
*i* dont want that my effort makes others take profit and dont give
anything to me. Of course you'll be proud that your
library/application is used on
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 14:33:25 (+0200),
Cedric BAIL wrote:
Yes. That's the exact purpose of the GPL/LPGL.
I know what the purpose is. I've read both quite thoroughly.
Worrying about the reuse of the code is a good thing. But imho when
we move code around, most of the time it's our own
Jose Gonzalez schrieb:
Peter wrote:
to it and the original code was LGPL. But would you share code with
someone, that doesn't share code with you?
Good point. And that's precisely why many people don't like to
contribute to bsd licensed projects. In the case of
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:16:17 -0700 Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We do not own anything because we are not a legal entity. So
there is no such thing as our code. There is raster's code, and
there's devilhorns' code, and there's your code...but there's no
our code.
Which is
2008/7/26 Jose Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Peter wrote:
to it and the original code was LGPL. But would you share code with
someone, that doesn't share code with you?
Good point. And that's precisely why many people don't like to
contribute to bsd licensed projects. In the case of
On 25-Jul-08, at 7:48 PM, Jose Gonzalez wrote:
Peter wrote:
to it and the original code was LGPL. But would you share code with
someone, that doesn't share code with you?
Good point. And that's precisely why many people don't like to
contribute to bsd licensed projects. In the
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
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Cedric BAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Jose Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Smarter or not.. again, who really knows. Companies make their choices,
individuals make theirs.. each based on whatever set of reasons. Sometimes
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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)
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
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
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.
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
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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Michael wrote:
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
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.
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
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
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
Michael wrote:
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
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:10:49 -0500 Nathan Ingersoll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Jose Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
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
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
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:45 PM, 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
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 6:45 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
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
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Nathan Ingersoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ProFUSION will release its code under LGPL (guarana and possible
others to come). And yes, we think just like you, but the code is
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:45:47 +0200
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
On Monday, 21 July 2008, at 13:45:47 (+0200),
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
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
59 matches
Mail list logo
