Interesting. :-) So any application or platform that would like to use Upstart and would like to talk to it using a client library would need to be GPLed? Or do unnatural acts like introduce an proxy process inbetween just to avoid this?
I should say, that certainly is going to be a hindrance to widespread adoption of Upstart. But like Michael points out though, just being able to use libdbus without the rest of the D-Bus baggage, certainly paves a way out. Another slightly unrelated question. We are hoping to find a stable point in the Upstart devlopment tree with dbus support and without cgroups(it introduces a kernel version dependency that we can't handle) and start a testing/hardening effort, that we would like to contribute back to Upstart. Is there a good point that you would suggest for us to start doing the above? I didn't see any ETA for 0.5. So I am not sure where to start for the above. Thx, Sarvi >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Scott James Remnant >Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 8:32 AM >To: Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi) >Cc: upstart-devel@lists.ubuntu.com >Subject: RE: Upstart Client Library >Importance: High > >On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 08:20 -0700, Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi) wrote: > >> If I had a proprietary program and wanted to talk to Upstart. >> >Licence your program under the GPL. > >Scott >-- >Have you ever, ever felt like this? >Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? > -- upstart-devel mailing list upstart-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
