Hi all, I'm just going over the various COPYING files to prepare tagging the appropiate licenses for pkgsrc.
e_dbus: I'm not sure if this is intentional, but this is certainly not the MIT license and it looks like it is functionally equal or stronger than the original BSD license. E.g. it might not be GPL compatible. See the third paragraph (... its documentation and marketing & publicy materials, ...). So calling it a BSD license in the spec file is only partially true. ecore: License in spec should be MIT if RPM distinguishes this. edje: The second paragraph is non-OSI and some parts are weird, e.g. the file doesn't actually contain a copyright notice. I think the 2-clause BSD license covers the intention and is OSI approved, but that's your call. eet: Same as edje. efreet: Same as e_dbus. embryo: Same as edje. enlightenment: Same as edje evas: Same as edje Summary: Having two licenses that aren't OSI approved is suboptimal. It would make corporate usage at least somewhat easier to have only OSI approved licenses as there are a lot of guidelines dealing with those already. At the very least, it would be useful to only have a single non-LGPL license, in which case the (weaker) edje version is preferable. I'm bringing this up (again) now since having consistency useful for EFL 1.0.0. Joerg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
