On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> 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. > >> Just by chance, edje_cache.c has a copyright and LGPL license header. >> It might be useful to carefully check for those as well :) > > argh. sachiel... why did you add that in? as such we dont put separate > copyright notices per file (mostly because it creates maintenance hassle and > is > not strictly needed - it's a legal nicety if someone steals a file wholesale - > but then they wont be shipping it as source anyway and so will be hidden no > matter what). > >
WTF?!?!? I don't like at all the *GPL, when did I add that? > -- > ------------- 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
