On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Nick Hughart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I still don't understand what about the BSD makes it not always free, > you can't steal the code, the free code is always there. Even if raster > wanted to, he could not just up and close the code. He would have to > make a closed fork and develop it on his own or with others who agree to > go that route. In that same thread, I don't expect a company to pay > their employees to just give away everything for free if they are truely > adding some value to the code that the open source community either > cannot or doesn't have the desire to. Also, they will have a lot more > time to add value since they are depending on the community to keep the > base solid. If they give back, that's great, but not all companies can > afford to do this and some may just need some time to get on their feet > before they give back. The BSD license gives them this ability and > offers them true freedom in their decisions and leaves the moral choice > in their hands, not the hands of others. A company that chooses to give > back out of choice is better then one that gives back because they are > required to do so IMO.
Some people don't want their code forked off and closed away and want all contributions to come back. This is the difference. > Also, by introducing an LGPL lib into the community to the point that > our core BSD libs become dependent on it does hurt things. It's always > been the assumption that our core libs will be BSD from the bottom up. > E17 is also licensed BSD. This is a decision that was made around 10 years ago, we're working on changing that. > If the lib was not core we didn't worry all > that much about the license used, at least as a community. When it > comes to the libs that we ship as our crowning achievements, having two > licenses throughout is just going to drive companies insane. It > complicates all the legalities involved and they then have to be extra > careful not to touch any LGPL lib code. Also note how I said LGPL > coming into the community and not LGPL in general. Generally any LGPL > lib we depend on now is an indirect dep of another lib we depend on that > is generally BSD or otherwise similarly licensed (best I can tell > anyway). Some of the indirect deps like libC are not always GPL either > as we are not (or should not) be dependent on a single implementation of > this. After having looked into this more heavily I'm now even more > concerned by having an LGPL as an immediate dep of Evas and Ecore, two > of our lowest level libraries. No one expects anything to happen over the course of a single night, week, or month. Its going to take some time, and we're going to keep at it until its done. -- Hisham Mardam Bey http://hisham.cc/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
