On 3-Aug-08, at 1:30 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: > On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 2:15 PM, dan sinclair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> Maybe the work they're doing isn't useful for the rest of the >> community. > > that's up to the community to decide. > > >> Maybe they had to sign an NDA to work with a specific chipset and >> can't give >> back. > > I don't care. > > >> Maybe they implement something that is central to their business and >> don't want to give away the keys to the kingdom but are willing to >> help with >> other parts of the lib in the public. > > Everything can be considered the central business, even doing packages > and assembling the pieces together (see ubuntu). And I don't care, > that's the company problem, not the community problem.
Yes, and it's up to the company to decide what they need to keep private to make money. That's how companies work. I don't see any reason why we should put restrictions on them as to what they can keep private. 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
