On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:19 AM, David Seikel <onef...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >> > > > +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.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > That is right. For all purposes consider EFL = LGPL. We just
>> >> > didn't change the license as it would require approvals. But
>> >> > effectively it's all LGPL.
>> >>
>> >> I'll note that "effectively" changing it all to LGPL did not
>> >> require approvals.
>> >
>> > Well, the resulting license is different. Indeed it will be LGPL.
>> > But say you take Evas and remove eina dep, you could use that as
>> > BSD.
>
> You say that like it would be an easy thing to remove the eina
> dependency from evas. Note that there is nothing wrong with the eina
> code, it's generally quite good code.
it's not easy... but who said it should be? One wants to NOT comply
with a license, so one does some work :-P
>> Also writing Evas engine/loader/saver and Ecore_Evas/Ecore will be
>> under BSD letting you write your own backend that doesn't require to
>> be upstream, because we don't really care about all the crazy fb API
>> in that world. Can be useful in some embedded case.
>
> In my embedded case the only reason I can tell the client that he does
> not have to worry about crazy virus licences is cause he's not
> distributing binaries to other peolpe, they all remain under his
> control.
This so freaking complex that it's better for you not not guarantee
anything. I've been told that even IPC (dbus, sockets) may be
considered "tainted" if you do in the sole purpose to circumvent some
license and the copyright holder wants to go after you.
> The debate will rage on once more. The people that thought they where
> licensing their code under BSD will mewl ineffectively about their
> rights being taken away. The GPL people will smugly and effectively say
> "ner ner ner, nothing you can do about it now". In the end the debate
> will be as ineffective as the BSD licence, the only likely result might
> be the loss of some developers.
This debate happened when we merged eina in 2008. It was on purpose
made LGPL, with Cedric, raster and I being the supporters (among
others). Some people left, but project still stand.
As for "licensing their code under BSD will mewl ineffectively about
their rights being taken away"... it's complete non-sense. Their
rights weren't taken away, they explicitly gave their agreement by
using the license:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
the second clause doesn't matter as we just distribute in source. The
source retains the copyright and conditions and disclaimer... so the
license is being fulfilled.
--
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
http://profusion.mobi embedded systems
--------------------------------------
MSN: barbi...@gmail.com
Skype: gsbarbieri
Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
