On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 07:13:13AM +1000, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > 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.
The 2-clause BSD license is GPL compatible. The primary difference between 2-clause BSD license and MIT license is the clarification that binary distributions have to provide the copyright notice separately in text form. From the COPYING-PLAIN, I can't find a reason to not use the straight forward 2-clause BSD license, if the above is your only concern. Just by chance, edje_cache.c has a copyright and LGPL license header. It might be useful to carefully check for those as well :) 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
