On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Hubert Figuiere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Seriously, that even more reason for hoping the relicensing of
libgladeui as LGPL does not happen. Basically, what you are proposing,
is that Glade be licensed in a way that it would favor fragmenting GNOME
while
Hi,
Just some (potentially biased) historical context for Bitkeeper...
Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Hubert Figuiere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No yet another BitKeeper-like situation. We have seen what it does.
I'm not 100% schooled on what exactly happened with
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linus decided that Bitkeeper was fine for his needs, and started using
it and publishing his repository in a public Bitkeeper repository.
Bitkeeper guy (Larry McVoy) gave free copies of the client to free
software developers.
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 17:02 -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
I am not here to deny anyone free use of Glade, that would include
any company who might need to write a proper sdk for their GNU/Linux
based embedded/handheld/realtime/insert-flavour-here platform.
Seriously, that even more reason
Hi Tristan!
Just a sidenote (I am not joing the free software discussion): I think
you will get some difficulties relicensing when not all authors agree
and as far as I have understood Naba, he doesn't. I have not
constributed too much to glade and you could probably replace my code
but I don't
(apperently my other email just now missed the list due to mailing from my
ordinary email address, here it is...)
Hi Guys,
Theres obviously been some scrutiny concerning our decision to finally
relicense Glade or primarily, libgladeui - so I will try to do my best
to address your concerns and
suspected of such a treasonous plan
No one has been accused of having a treasonous plan.
You've helped the free software community significantly with your Glade work
(thanks!). Changing the licence to LGPL would partially undo that help,
which would be unfortunate, so hopefully this licence
I dont see how I can agree that entering in direct competition
with anyone who wants to make a dollar from a software solution is
going to bring us to that long-term goal.
The GNU Project has a history of competing successfully with
proprietary software. For instance, GCC competed
Hi Tristan
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 05:06:07PM -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Richard M. Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...]
As free software developers we naturally feel good to see our own
programs in wider use. But what is really important is for
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Richard M. Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you want to relicense Glade under the GNU Lesser GPL?
The current license, the GNU GPL, seems more appropriate since
it prevents the release of non-free extensions of Glade.
Hi,
Basically, the glade core
Basically, the glade core is intended to serve as a library to
edit glade files, making the glade core available under LGPL
in my understanding will allow people to use that library in a
commercial IDE,
It would do that, and that seems like a good reason not to change the
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Richard M. Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, the glade core is intended to serve as a library to
edit glade files, making the glade core available under LGPL
in my understanding will allow people to use that library in a
commercial
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 16:03 -0400, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
Licensing Glade under the LGPL means that we
might, at some point down the road, have an IDE that doesn't suck,
which we can use for hacking Gnome. While I'm sure you don't agree, I
would rather have some IDE, regardless of license,
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Richard M. Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
As free software developers we naturally feel good to see our own
programs in wider use. But what is really important is for free
software to replace proprietary software. We can achieve more for
freedom if
Hi,
We've been talking about relicensing Glade 3 under LGPL for
a few years now (other primary contributors and myself), and I'm
about to try and bite the bullet and take the plunge.
I have a vague idea about what things must be done and steps that must be
taken for this to happen, i.e.
Hi Tristan,
Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
We've been talking about relicensing Glade 3 under LGPL for
a few years now (other primary contributors and myself), and I'm
about to try and bite the bullet and take the plunge.
I have a vague idea about what things must be done and steps that
Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
3b. If you can't get to 100%, you'll need to remove/rewrite all code by
authors you can't contact or who refuse permission.
It would also be worth asking the lawyers who worked on Mozilla's change of
licence. For authors who refuse permission, the above
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
You need to:
1. Make a list of each author of Glade
2. Contact each of them, requesting permission to relicence Glade
3a. When all of them have sent you a written note (email is OK) then you
can go ahead.
3b. If you
18 matches
Mail list logo
