On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:33:06 +0200 Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de> said:
> 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. indeed something that needs to be done for alpha - it needs a COPYING-PLAIN that clarifies this clause. see copying-plain. that boils it down to having an acknowledgement of "some sort". as such dynamically linking to the library is an acknowledgement. statically linking though is hiding that. of course if you then ship the source like you would have to with LGPL, you then acknowledge use.. so... it acts as LGPL in that case. - thus the advertising clause kicks in with documentation etc. etc. etc. - we've been through this before with redhat asking about the license. though i am talking of the copying etc. you see in eet, evas, etc. here we are just missing the COPYING-PLAIN and have the old style advertising clause with no exemptions that remove gpl incompatibility. i don't know why the licensing here is different to evas/edje/eet etc. can someone clarify? > ecore: > License in spec should be MIT if RPM distinguishes this. COPYING-PLAIN included but COPYING is wrong - see evas + edje + eet. it should have been that. > 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. if you only ship OSI approved software then you won't be shipping efl. :) but yes. copyright notice seems to have vanished. odd. need to fix that. anyway - the license is the 2 clause bsd with addendum that effectively makes it like lgpl which removes the gpl incompatibility. it provides no restrictions on apps or libs that link to the the efl lib. it provides for restrictions for people distributing the efl lib as stand-alone or statically compiled. if by incompatibility you mean either gpl apps using efl libraries OR gpl apps shipping along inside a distro package set with these efl apps. > 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. yup. agreed. at least the intent is to have the weaker one. efreet, e_dbus and eeze too are imho "not set up right" - the intent at least is they should be compatible if they want to come out of our svn and release. the choice is lgpl or efl license. i fixed the copyright missing bit in the other libs. > 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 > -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ras...@rasterman.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
