On 9/17/07, Sas(o Kiselkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > Jesse Ross wrote: > >>> I am thinking to move the codes regarding battery into > >>> SystemConfig. > >>> Currently, a Linux implementation using /proc/apm is in > >>> PowerMenulet > >>> and a FreeBSD implementation is in EtoileMenuServer. > >>> While it is not hard to do so, I have to deal with license issue > >>> first. > >>> PowerMenulet (me) is in BSD-license. > >>> MenuServer (Saso) is GPL 2, but the ETMachineInfo_FreeBSD.m > >>> (David) is in BSD. > >>> (I am not sure it is allowed in this case). > >> It is allowed, given the consent of both authors, which I believe we > >> have :-) don't forget that licenses don't apply to the authors of > >> the work. > >> > >>> SystemConfig (Quentin and Guenther) is under LGPL2. > >>> I understand everyone has his opinions on the license. > >>> I *personally* think the easiest solution is to turn > >>> SystemConfig into BSD. > >>> Comments ? > >>> > >>> Yen-Ju > >>> > >> I don't really care, and there is no problem relicensing MenuServer > >> under any license we want. > > > > We may want to take this opportunity to come up with some formal > > rules for what licenses code must be under in order to be accepted > > into the Etoile project. Thus far, we've been pretty open to allowing > > most anything, with a preference for BSD and LGPL. While we're still > > in the early stages of the project and should be able to track down > > everyone who's committed something to the codebase, it is to our > > benefit to go through the code now and see if we can't talk to the > > authors and relicense work that is already in the project into the > > most permissive license we can, in order to give us flexibility with > > code combination. > > > > This is what I'm proposing: > > > > All new code should be under a BSD or more permissive license (X11/ > > MIT, public domain...). > > All existing code should be attempted to be relicensed to BSD or more > > permissive, with the author's permission. > > Any new contributions to existing projects should be under the same > > license as the project, or a more permissive license. > > Any ports or forks from existing work should be under the license of > > the original project, and should not be GPL if there is a more > > permissively-licensed alternative. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Etoile-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev > > > > I agree with the thought of clarifying licensing issues. I don't really > agree to use a totally liberal license (i.e. BSD or releasing into the > public domain), but if it's what people want, I have no objections.
How about we duel-license on everything with BSD and GPL 2 (and later) ? By duel-license, I mean when people make modification, they can pick one license and discard the other one if they want. The only exceptions are: UnitKit is in Apache 2, which is fine since it is pretty independent from others. NewsStand is Apache 2, but it may not go into -stable anyway. So it is fine, too. PopplerKit is GPL2 as David explained. Many applications are GPL. We need to be clear what happens if some codes is moved into frameworks. Yen-Ju > > - -- > Saso > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFG7vXdakxhuWWzY78RA/1JAKCUtJjXIK88ZD3jqI0tPIca74ltjQCggCWO > rcmWfRK9QhYpW4VUxhtSErE= > =GFtv > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Etoile-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev > _______________________________________________ Etoile-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev
