On 3-Aug-08, at 1:04 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: > On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:56 PM, dan sinclair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> On 3-Aug-08, at 12:43 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: >>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Andreas Volz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> It seems the license question is still very much discussed. Until >>>> now I >>>> didn't say much about it. But now I like to add my 2 cents to that >>>> topic. >>>> >>>> At work we develop software for embedded devices. In most cases >>>> is the >>>> result a commercial closed-source product. >>>> >>>> For sure we used open source software in the past (not based on EFL >>>> until now!). So GPL is no option. The LGPL would be an option. But >>>> in most cases it's not an option as good as BSD (better say MIT). >>>> The >>>> reason is that in most cases it's needed to modify the library >>>> itself. >>>> For example if there's a Win32 and a Linux port, but no WinCE >>>> port. For >>>> sure one could contribute the changes back to the open source >>>> project. >>>> But in most cases this doesn't happen because of time or interest. >>> >>> This is exactly what companies that contribute back, like ProFUSION >>> and others, dislike. We do contribute back and we expect that others >>> do that, we want others to play fair. >>> >> >> This is also what other companies that contribute to the EFL like. >> They want >> to be able to hold some stuff back while giving other stuff back to >> the >> community. > > Yes, and in this case why don't they create another library? If they > need to modify the library we all use, then why not give it back? > Those that are complaining find that wrong and unfair. > > >>> This might not be a problem for u as an individual developer that >>> writes code on free time and don't care about that. But for us, we >>> release the software expecting to improve the projects we've used, >>> but >>> we don't like competitors taking advantage of that and never giving >>> back. >>> >> >> Yet, this is exactly what you talk about in the next paragraph by >> forking to >> LGPL. You'll take all the code and never give anything back. > > This is a distortion, don't try to do that, it's stupid. > > FYI, even GPL don't consider "giving back" = "write back to original > repository" as you seem to say. It say keep it available as others > could use. Doing a fork and working on that fork is still giving it > back.
It isn't a distortion. The spirt of the GPL isn't to lock the original authors out of the changes. It's to let everyone use the changes. Forking to LGPL will lock the BSD contributors out of any changes to the LGPL lib. > > > And if you read what I said, original files MUST be kept as BSD, > unless that file authors are all fine to change license (in that case > it's much easier, just go with cvs annotate for each file and ask > those authors, relicense individual files), that file will keep in the > original license and thus any fixes for that file [ie: minor fixes] > are still under BSD and you can pick it. Just the new code, > uncopyrighable (there are lots in this kind of lib) and heavily > modified code will be licensed under LGPL. > I wasn't talking about the original files. I was talking about modifications and additions. You lock the BSD authors out of the LGPL changes unless they change to LGPL. dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
