On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So your argument is that you don't need to justify your choices >> because you're more active right now? > > Basically, and because your license says so.
The license we're using does not say "change the project-wide license decisions at the whim of newer committers." > As for keeping core consistent, we CAN, if this is the only blocker, > relicense ALL core components as LGPL and keep individual files as > BSD, this is perfectly doable, just need to have the file header with > the proper license. Yes, you can, though you can't use the names of components without permission as those belong to the authors No big deal renaming them though. > BSD files, while cannot be relicensed, can be "casted" (like in > strongly typed language's cast) to LPGL. So whenever, during runtime, > you link against LGPL, your resulting process is governed by LGPL. > LGPL, on the other side, when linked to GPL, results in GPL and so the > process and associated libraries. If you make this linkage static, or > files inside the same process (can be defined as static linkage as > well), you have to consider it all as the most demaing (ie: LGPL). > > That means we can license the PROJECT (ie: evas, ecore) under LGPL > without asking anyone, we don't even have to mention that some files > inside the project are BSD (since we're open source and bsd-raster > says we don't have to acknoldge if it's open source, just if it's > closed we need to inform the authors). What we must do is to keep BSD > files with the proper header, if one wants to be smart and take files > to compose a proprietary product, he can go through every file and > check if it's possible or not, but the project overview or advice is > to be LGPL. > > And before you continue, your license permits this, it's ok for you. > If you find this is WRONG, then we're in the same boat, and we should > go to LGPL to progressively "fix" this, replacing BSD bits with code > evolution. I know the license permits this, and I want it to permit it. Have fun, go fork a LGPL version of everything, couldn't care less. In fact I suggested that turran go do this to test his hypothesis that the choice of license is what is preventing community growth. I don't want the LGPL to be the single license for the official project because you now remove that freedom from anyone else choosing a different license in the future. Moving to the LGPL is a one-way change that we can't come back from without extraordinary effort. That would require getting permission from every author that contributed under the license, and it's already been shown that it's extremely difficult to track down past authors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
