On 10/14/05, Jose O Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, as you'll notice the licensing was only a small part of my message or any of my prior messages on this matter.
As a project, it has been the concensus to use the BSD license, and I think most of us are quite happy with that license. The issue isn't arguing over LGPL vs BSD vs Some Random License, the problem is that the LGPL places further restrictions on the license. So if a company decides to take EWL as a basis for a product (and follows the attribution portions of the license), they are free to do so right now. If the theme is LGPL, then they are obliged to publish any changes to that theme, but may not realize it because they downloaded a set of BSD licensed source code. So my reasoning on this is to protect the interests of users and the original author. If the author wants to use the LGPL, they are more than welcome to, and I don't want to put them in a position of having their copyright unwittingly violated. The same applies to the company that downloads the tarball, they should not unwittingly be violating someone elses copyright if they make modifications to the theme and distribute it.
Hope that clears up the issue. It's not about religion, just looking out for everyone involved the best we can by avoiding incompatible licenses in a single project.
Nathan
It's odd but one begins to get the feeling that a lot of this
negative reaction to etk has more to do with the licensing issue
than with actual code, or antecedent discussion about issues,
etc.
No, as you'll notice the licensing was only a small part of my message or any of my prior messages on this matter.
If indeed there are those who care about "choice" above all,
then either place no constraints on your work, or allow for a choice
of licensing schemes - allow for the work to be licensed under a number
of licenses that are commonly used: BSD, GPL, XYZ, ...
As a project, it has been the concensus to use the BSD license, and I think most of us are quite happy with that license. The issue isn't arguing over LGPL vs BSD vs Some Random License, the problem is that the LGPL places further restrictions on the license. So if a company decides to take EWL as a basis for a product (and follows the attribution portions of the license), they are free to do so right now. If the theme is LGPL, then they are obliged to publish any changes to that theme, but may not realize it because they downloaded a set of BSD licensed source code. So my reasoning on this is to protect the interests of users and the original author. If the author wants to use the LGPL, they are more than welcome to, and I don't want to put them in a position of having their copyright unwittingly violated. The same applies to the company that downloads the tarball, they should not unwittingly be violating someone elses copyright if they make modifications to the theme and distribute it.
Hope that clears up the issue. It's not about religion, just looking out for everyone involved the best we can by avoiding incompatible licenses in a single project.
Nathan
