Hi,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Simon McVittie
wrote:
> As mentioned above, dropping my use of libdbus' "helpful" object path mapping
> and just using a filter function was a net code reduction.
Getting pretty off-topic, but the object path mapping in
DBusConnection isn't intended to be a c
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 at 21:11:13 +0100, Robert McQueen wrote:
> dbus-python has had to duplicate a lot of the checking that libdbus does
> to validate calls before calling methods in libdbus, because whilst
> libdbus requires the application programmer gets stuff right at all
> times, dbus-python ca
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Robert McQueen
wrote:
> Havoc Pennington wrote:
>>
>> Nobody has yet explained (to my satisfaction anyway) how the libdbus
>> license has an issue the LGPL does not have. Perhaps we should get
>> Luis or SFLC on the case, but I'm not sure it's worth their time.
>
>
Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Robert McQueen
> wrote:
>> My belief is that the problem is that under certain implementations
>> of LGPL, the stuff you link the LGPL library to must also be LGPL
>> compatible, and that the AFL patent clause is not.
>
> This d
Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Havoc,
> Just for the record, my comment on this has always been that the
> license issues were not earth-shattering to begin with, and the
> relicensing was just throwing a bone to people who cared. Not sure
> "large chunk" is super accurate, either. As a practic
