On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:22:16 +1000 David Seikel <onef...@gmail.com> said:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:02:57 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) > <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:37:12 +1000 David Seikel <onef...@gmail.com> > > said: > > > > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:48:14 -0800 "Enlightenment SVN" > > > <no-re...@enlightenment.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Log: > > > > add missing licenses references, fix copyright, add link result > > > > notice. > > > > > > > > Author: barbieri > > > > Date: 2013-01-16 13:48:14 -0800 (Wed, 16 Jan 2013) > > > > New Revision: 82911 > > > > Trac: http://trac.enlightenment.org/e/changeset/82911 > > > > > > > > Modified: > > > > trunk/efl/COPYING trunk/efl/licenses/COPYING.BSD > > > > trunk/efl/licenses/COPYING.LGPL > > > > > > > > Modified: trunk/efl/COPYING > > > > =================================================================== > > > > --- trunk/efl/COPYING 2013-01-16 21:47:37 UTC (rev 82910) > > > > +++ trunk/efl/COPYING 2013-01-16 21:48:14 UTC (rev 82911) > > > > @@ -1,11 +1,23 @@ > > > > -EFL comes with several licences. Listed are the library/probject > > > > +EFL comes with several licences. Listed are the library/project > > > > name and the license file covering it. > > > > > > > > evil: licenses/COPYING.BSD > > > > -escape: licenses/COPYING.GPL > > > > +escape: licenses/COPYING.GPL (used in PlayStation > > > > native) +eina: licenses/COPYING.LGPL > > > > eet: licenses/COPYING.BSD > > > > -eina: licenses/COPYING.LGPL > > > > eo: licenses/COPYING.BSD > > > > evas: licenses/COPYING.BSD > > > > +embryo: licenses/COPYING.SMALL > > > > ecore: licenses/COPYING.BSD > > > > -embryo: licenses/COPYING.SMALL > > > > +eio: licenses/COPYING.LGPL > > > > +edbus: licenses/COPYING.LGPL > > > > +efreet: licenses/COPYING.BSD > > > > +eeze: licenses/COPYING.BSD > > > > +ephysics: licenses/COPYING.BSD > > > > +edje: licenses/COPYING.BSD > > > > +edje/epp: licenses/COPYING.GPL (separate > > > > binary/executable) +emotion: licenses/COPYING.BSD > > > > +ethumb: licenses/COPYING.LGPL > > > > + > > > > +NOTE: If linked together, the result will be LGPL (or GPL is > > > > Escape is +used) due that license characteristics. > > > > > > Hmmm, guess that means the BSD licences are useless, since it's all > > > gonna be linked together anyway, and thus GPL contaminated. > > > > incorrect. > > Actually the real problem is code movement. We merged EFL so that we > can easily shift things around between the libraries and consolidate > code to the overall benefit of the entire set of libraries. In the case actually that was barely on the list of reasons. biggest reason was simple user pressure indicating they are unhappy with builidng a dozen libraries and that's too complex. another major reason is documentation consolidation because libs work with eachother so much. another reason is to ensure that peolpe are more likely or guaranteed to have the same dependency builds we devs have - ie most of efl. so we have less "well that build path/option isnt even tested" bugs... moving code from library to library is a very very very minimal sideline thing. > where someone might want to move code they did not write from a BSD > part to a LGPL part, or the other way around, they might need bsd -> lgpl is doable. > permission from the original author to re-licence that bit of code. > Things could get messy. permission is basically impossible unless we get them to sign real pieces of paper and mail them around the world from a legal point of view. this only matters if the author disagrees and takes legal as action. it is my position that re-licensing bsd to lgpl is allowable due to the license it was delivered under (bsd) never forbids adding new restrictions that lgpl does - it's a subset of lgpl > I think I mentioned that in the last debate. Wrapping "the following > three lines of code are XXX licensed, unlike the rest of this source > file" comments around bits of code is a bit silly. > > Basically, there is a legal barrier to the code mobility we desire. > Better get a lawyer son, better get a real good one. B-) find lawyers who understand licence issues like lgpl vs bsd.. good luck. reality is half of the long time oss devs here are better versed in license law than 99% of the legal profession. code is not moving any more or less than it did before. its just a single build tree now. > I don't think anyone will fall for the argument that since BSD is > "compatible" with LGPL, being essentially a subset of the restrictions, > that code, or code snippets, can automatically be demoted from one to > the other. they can move from bsd to lgpl safely. not the other way. -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ras...@rasterman.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122712 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
