Michael wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 19:32:21 (-0400),
> Jose Gonzalez wrote:
>
>
>> In any case Nathan, as I've stated before, if you feel comfortable
>> with such licenses, then good for you. I just don't share that view.
>>
>
> We get it. You've said it half a dozen times already...and virtually
> nothing else.
>
> This entire conversation has deviated way off-topic and needs to
> stop. If someone wants to address Jorge's original question, please
> do so. Otherwise, please help us get back on track by not continuing
> this irrelevant tangent.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
And so have you, even more times, over the years.. and imposed your
restrictions on committing to E's cvs as well. And that's part of the very
issue here - how such licensing restrictions might be affecting the growth
and development of "E". No irrelevant tangents here, just what you don't
want to hear. Any attempt to state LGPL as an alternative is dismissed..
often with the same kind of arguments used by MS.
What do I think is a better alternative - clearly, I would vote for LGPL.
____________________________________________________________
Internet Security Software - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mEWsAXk9gjpSax334ZoMrN25Ci871jaIXwIKp0q9aLPQLGI/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
