On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 07:41:01AM +1000, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:33:33 +0200 Joerg Sonnenberger > <jo...@britannica.bec.de> > said: > > > 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. > > well the intent is to still get some kind of acknowledgment. be it via a > simple > "ldd" and see what it links to or a ls /usr/lib and see libevas.so* or via a > notice in documentation, source code publication or email etc. - some > mechanism > to say "hey - we used your stuff". the 2 clause bsd doesn't. the 3 clause does > but creates compat issues. the efl modified 3 clause should be issue-free.
To avoid confusion: http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php is the canonical reference. 2-clause BSD license drops the "endorsement" clause. The normal way to fulfill clause 2 ("Redistribution in binary form") is to either also provide source code or to have a LEGAL file somewhere. The difference to the original (4-clause) BSD license is that you don't have to put it in the fine print of your ads or at the end of the user manual. The difference to the (L)GPL is that you don't have to provide the source code. The note in the place you would normally place the (L)GPL source offer is good enough. In theory, putting it as file into the flash of the machine or on the CD-ROM with the electronical manual is good enough. The legal hassle for this is reduced by having a single top-level file like COPYING. It could get even easier if that file lists the exceptions and that it is authoritive for the rest. E.g. Makefile.in and configure are not covered by COPYING. If you want a mechanism of "if you use this, you have to tell us about it", you get the same problem with the GPL as the original BSD license. Just to be clear, the difference here is that it requires actively telling about the use and such it is considered by the FSF an additional restriction. 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
