Hi Paul,
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 12:46 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> Once you start accepting a significant amount of code without copyright
> assignment, it will be difficult to the point of impossibility to change
> the license again.
Yes. Hence (in part) the choice of a more liberal / lesse
Hi Paul,
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 15:30 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > * Move Evolution licensing to "LGPL v2 and LGPL v3" to let us re-use
> > the code more easily around the platform.
>
> Did you mean LGPLv2 _or_ LGPLv3 here?
Yes; it's dual licensed - which gives people rather a choice of
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 04:21 -0600, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> We have had a set of problems that we are carrying around for some
> time like :
>
> * Copyright assignments, which is not the best way looking for
> the future of Evolution. It sucks and sort of limits contributions to
> Evolutio
> * Move Evolution licensing to "LGPL v2 and LGPL v3" to let us re-use
> the code more easily around the platform.
I'm a little concerned with this plan in conjunction with the "getting
rid of copyright assignment" plan.
Once you start accepting a significant amount of code without copyright
ass
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 04:21 -0600, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> * The current licensing incompatibility issues of Evolution with
> Samba4/libmapi (GPLv3). Evolution needs to link with libmapi/samba4
> for the new mapi based connector being developed for Exchange 2007.
[...]
> * Move Evolution lic
Hello guys,
We have had a set of problems that we are carrying around for some time like :
* Copyright assignments, which is not the best way looking for the future
of Evolution. It sucks and sort of limits contributions to Evolution and we
wanted to drop it.
* The current licensing
