Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On 01/26/2014 03:01 AM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Simon si...@simotek.net wrote: On 01/25/2014 10:16 AM, Andrew F wrote: Thanks simon, Is your company in America ? Thanks. Australia, we sell some products into America though funny, we used to have another australian company to come with the same arguments, fluffy spider. Even raster did some work with them, they returned so little to community we even used them as a bad example when argument about what bsd doesn't bring and lgpl would bring. I recall they went with a fork of efl anyway, if so they should be very different from current efl, given the amount of changes we did in these 6 years. My company uses Qt rather then efl(no efl release when the project started), i just play with it in my spare time. -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 09:31 +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote: On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:03:02 +0100 Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk said: On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 19:07 +0100, Thomas Strobel wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 21:51 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 19:14 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: this was on purpose. The recent authors (cedric, me, tom...) decided they didn't like BSD as the ancient and the license was hurting us as nobody gave back. Then when we created Eina to unify data types in ecore and evas, we proposed to do it in LGPL and people accepted, raster was okay with that and so we did. Thanks for the explanation. Just out of curiosity, did it help? I mean, did you get more people to contribute back to the project now? I doubt all the companies that did contribute lots of resources would have done if it was bsd. It's hard to ensure the results of a change would have in the future, but companies would just ignore it because of license (ie: my company) to others that would likely keep private changes because they were allowed to. given the way big companies work, I doubt samsung would contribute everything they did if they didn't have to... it's a hard and painful process, they had to do, i guess they would just skip if they were allowed. Thanks! It was very interesting to follow the heated discussion about this topic. It seems difficult to estimate the consequences of the different licenses though. I just wonder what your intentions are for the future. Do you plan to push everything towards LGPL? The BSD license would be perfectly fine with doing so (same argument as used for moving certain parts of EFL to LGPL already). Or are you hesitating because you want to keep a way to move back to BSD? Looking at it from the outside (non-contributor so far), it would be clearer to have one license only, or at least have the less permissive license for the less fundamental parts (that is opposite to how it is right now). From how the code is structured, the license does not really matter at the moment as you can easily link and integrate closed-source parts. But it would be nice to know where you're heading to. Or, is your intention to put a price onto not contributing back, but leaving the opportunity to do so? That is by asking e.g. companies who want to use EFL commercially to at least take the effort in keeping their closed-source parts separated and thus making it more cumbersome to manage. If so, nicely done! the intentions for the future is to merge efl. the split thing is just not what the vast majority of people (packagers, developers etc.) want. the vast majority find it a major pain in the rear - a barier of entry, a hinderance to learning etc. - so such a move ultimately will mean we compile into far fewer library files. simple leagal necessity will be that efl as a whole becomes lgpl as that is the compatible superset of licenses. but actually we are raising the price of a fork. not by license - but by motion. our merge of efl alone has effectively chopped off at the knees any prior forks (except elementary). the cost of maintaing those just went up. putting eo into everything also raised the price majorly. by simply moving along so rapidly, a fork becomes a massive cost to maintain. giving back and keping up is the only sensible option for anything other than a flash-in-the-pan effort. and for flash-in-th-pan efforts... we do have a license. :) there is a boundary for efl where you are free to plug in thins of any license. the api boundary. that means anything hat uses efl/elm's header files and links to the shared libs. this ALSO includes modules/plugns. you CAN provide closed module additions/replacements. modules are intended to cover several uses - moving shared lib dependencies of to an optional component only loaded on demand, create the ability to compile efl once and once only with all featues on and then split up package-wise your specific needs like x11 vs wayland so only the modules relevant are installed, as well as to act as a unified api wrapper to simplify internal code - eg to talk to something that loads images with the single same api no matter the loader or format. Thanks for your clarifications! It's interesting to know that EFL is moving towards LGPL. It is a pity to have to watch you lowering the value of your code, especially if the the pace with which EFL is being developed makes a fork almost impossible anyway. But I'm very grateful EFL exists in the first place, thanks! :) -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:17 AM, Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for offering a clarification Carsten.
We may take you up on that.
I would appreciate the clarification. The libstdc++v3 has the same
problem with inline functions (and template code) and that's why they
doesn't use LGPL, they use a GPL with a Runtime Library Exception.
Quote from FAQ:
2.3. How is that different from the GNU {Lesser,Library} GPL?
The LGPL requires that users be able to replace the LGPL code with a
modified version; this is trivial if the library in question is a C
shared library. But there's no way to make that work with C++, where
much of the library consists of inline functions and templates, which
are expanded inside the code that uses the library. So to allow people
to replace the library code, someone using the library would have to
distribute their own source, rendering the LGPL equivalent to the GPL.
[snip]
Regards,
--
Felipe Magno de Almeida
--
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
At Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:25:16 +0900 Enlightenment developer list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 09:40:30 -0200 Felipe Magno de Almeida
felipe.m.alme...@gmail.com said:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:17 AM, Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks for offering a clarification Carsten.
We may take you up on that.
I would appreciate the clarification. The libstdc++v3 has the same
problem with inline functions (and template code) and that's why they
doesn't use LGPL, they use a GPL with a Runtime Library Exception.
Quote from FAQ:
2.3. How is that different from the GNU {Lesser,Library} GPL?
The LGPL requires that users be able to replace the LGPL code with a
modified version; this is trivial if the library in question is a C
shared library. But there's no way to make that work with C++, where
much of the library consists of inline functions and templates, which
are expanded inside the code that uses the library. So to allow people
to replace the library code, someone using the library would have to
distribute their own source, rendering the LGPL equivalent to the GPL.
indeed i forgot to make that point. if we intended for the headers - with
macros and/or inline functions to infect users of efl, then we'd have just
chosen GPL. there is no point choosing LGPL. i would hope the intent is cler
enough already by explicit choice of LGPL vs GPL, but as i said - i'm sure we
can provide a clarification - i'm just leaving this open in this thread to see
if there are any comments on providing such a clarification for, or against.
One minor (?) clarification: enlightenment itself is still BSD licenced?
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / hel...@deepsoft.com
Deepwoods Software-- http://www.deepsoft.com/
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
--
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 09:17:29 -0500 Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com said:
At Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:25:16 +0900 Enlightenment developer list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 09:40:30 -0200 Felipe Magno de Almeida
felipe.m.alme...@gmail.com said:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:17 AM, Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks for offering a clarification Carsten.
We may take you up on that.
I would appreciate the clarification. The libstdc++v3 has the same
problem with inline functions (and template code) and that's why they
doesn't use LGPL, they use a GPL with a Runtime Library Exception.
Quote from FAQ:
2.3. How is that different from the GNU {Lesser,Library} GPL?
The LGPL requires that users be able to replace the LGPL code with a
modified version; this is trivial if the library in question is a C
shared library. But there's no way to make that work with C++, where
much of the library consists of inline functions and templates, which
are expanded inside the code that uses the library. So to allow people
to replace the library code, someone using the library would have to
distribute their own source, rendering the LGPL equivalent to the GPL.
indeed i forgot to make that point. if we intended for the headers - with
macros and/or inline functions to infect users of efl, then we'd have just
chosen GPL. there is no point choosing LGPL. i would hope the intent is cler
enough already by explicit choice of LGPL vs GPL, but as i said - i'm sure
we can provide a clarification - i'm just leaving this open in this thread
to see if there are any comments on providing such a clarification for, or
against.
One minor (?) clarification: enlightenment itself is still BSD licenced?
yes - read COPYING. :)
--
- Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am --
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)ras...@rasterman.com
--
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
Hello. On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 23:05, Andrew F wrote: I have to agree with David's post. We chose you over other options because of the BSD license. It gave us legal protections we could no get with LGPL. BSD Allows start ups to raise funds. Why? because investors are not going to fund a company that can't protects its code. Remember there is no legal ambiguity with the BSD license and plenty with the LGPL. And Legal ambiguity is the kiss of death for investors. With success, funds can be donated back to the base project when using a BSD license. To be honest... I think you cut your nuts off. You could have focused on marketing your professional consulting services or development services and raised funds that way. You could also have modified the licensee or added a commercial license. QT seems to be doing very well. You could have also been genuine and simply asked for financial assistance. You could have had fund raisers, on line or in person. BSD unix makes it annual budget with on-line fund raising. And when I say give back after the fact, its not lip service. Not only did we intend to give back to e17/e18/3x but we have budgeted for it. In fact we have added LINE ITEMS on our budget to cover quarterly donations for open source code that we use. And it makes scene for us. Open source developers develop the base product and we put a functional and good looking wrapper on it for end users. Open source teams do what they do well, which is develop core technologies, and we do what we do well, sell and market. ( and build functional and good looking wrappers) So, what do we do now? Find a new desktop? But we have been working on e17 /e18 for a while Our second choice was QT as they have a commercial license. On top of finding a new desktop, now I have to adjust our budgets. I have to take out a line item. Not a happy camper. In a nutshell you say that you did not correctly read our copyright notices and now have a problem. Which in your eyes makes it our fault. Charming. You have to understand that if your business goes well or not and if you will be the one out of ten startups that actually survive long enough to even consider giving something back is not really something we as an FOSS project have to care about. We over your around a million lines of code (efl + elm +e) which we as private persons or other comapnies invested millions for of man years in for free. You can take and make your products and get rich by selling them. Bringing up such a business for getting rich brings its risks. Natural. Telling other people that they should use a BSD style license to make _your_ life and risk management easier is not going to win you sympathy. regards Stefan Schmidt -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Simon si...@simotek.net wrote: On 01/25/2014 10:16 AM, Andrew F wrote: Thanks simon, Is your company in America ? Thanks. Australia, we sell some products into America though funny, we used to have another australian company to come with the same arguments, fluffy spider. Even raster did some work with them, they returned so little to community we even used them as a bad example when argument about what bsd doesn't bring and lgpl would bring. I recall they went with a fork of efl anyway, if so they should be very different from current efl, given the amount of changes we did in these 6 years. -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri -- Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202 Contact: http://www.gustavobarbieri.com.br/contact -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 21:51 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 19:14 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: this was on purpose. The recent authors (cedric, me, tom...) decided they didn't like BSD as the ancient and the license was hurting us as nobody gave back. Then when we created Eina to unify data types in ecore and evas, we proposed to do it in LGPL and people accepted, raster was okay with that and so we did. Thanks for the explanation. Just out of curiosity, did it help? I mean, did you get more people to contribute back to the project now? I doubt all the companies that did contribute lots of resources would have done if it was bsd. It's hard to ensure the results of a change would have in the future, but companies would just ignore it because of license (ie: my company) to others that would likely keep private changes because they were allowed to. given the way big companies work, I doubt samsung would contribute everything they did if they didn't have to... it's a hard and painful process, they had to do, i guess they would just skip if they were allowed. Thanks! It was very interesting to follow the heated discussion about this topic. It seems difficult to estimate the consequences of the different licenses though. I just wonder what your intentions are for the future. Do you plan to push everything towards LGPL? The BSD license would be perfectly fine with doing so (same argument as used for moving certain parts of EFL to LGPL already). Or are you hesitating because you want to keep a way to move back to BSD? Looking at it from the outside (non-contributor so far), it would be clearer to have one license only, or at least have the less permissive license for the less fundamental parts (that is opposite to how it is right now). From how the code is structured, the license does not really matter at the moment as you can easily link and integrate closed-source parts. But it would be nice to know where you're heading to. -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 19:07 +0100, Thomas Strobel wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 21:51 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 19:14 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: this was on purpose. The recent authors (cedric, me, tom...) decided they didn't like BSD as the ancient and the license was hurting us as nobody gave back. Then when we created Eina to unify data types in ecore and evas, we proposed to do it in LGPL and people accepted, raster was okay with that and so we did. Thanks for the explanation. Just out of curiosity, did it help? I mean, did you get more people to contribute back to the project now? I doubt all the companies that did contribute lots of resources would have done if it was bsd. It's hard to ensure the results of a change would have in the future, but companies would just ignore it because of license (ie: my company) to others that would likely keep private changes because they were allowed to. given the way big companies work, I doubt samsung would contribute everything they did if they didn't have to... it's a hard and painful process, they had to do, i guess they would just skip if they were allowed. Thanks! It was very interesting to follow the heated discussion about this topic. It seems difficult to estimate the consequences of the different licenses though. I just wonder what your intentions are for the future. Do you plan to push everything towards LGPL? The BSD license would be perfectly fine with doing so (same argument as used for moving certain parts of EFL to LGPL already). Or are you hesitating because you want to keep a way to move back to BSD? Looking at it from the outside (non-contributor so far), it would be clearer to have one license only, or at least have the less permissive license for the less fundamental parts (that is opposite to how it is right now). From how the code is structured, the license does not really matter at the moment as you can easily link and integrate closed-source parts. But it would be nice to know where you're heading to. Or, is your intention to put a price onto not contributing back, but leaving the opportunity to do so? That is by asking e.g. companies who want to use EFL commercially to at least take the effort in keeping their closed-source parts separated and thus making it more cumbersome to manage. If so, nicely done! -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 23:05:21 + Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com said: I have to agree with David's post. We chose you over other options because of the BSD license. It gave us legal protections we could no get with LGPL. BSD Allows start ups to raise funds. Why? because investors are not going to fund a company that can't protects its code. Remember there is no legal ambiguity with the BSD license and plenty with the LGPL. And Legal ambiguity is the kiss of death for investors. what ambiguity causes problems for you? you ship efl binaries and ship/make available the source to those binaries. anything you build on top is yours to license as you please. companies with far larger legal teams have done thumbs-up for lgpl for a very long time FOR the purposes of shipping proprietary code based on top of it. With success, funds can be donated back to the base project when using a BSD license. To be honest... I think you cut your nuts off. You could have focused on marketing your professional consulting services or development services and raised funds that way. You could also have modified the licensee or added a commercial license. QT seems to be doing very well. You could have also been genuine and simply asked for financial assistance. You could have had fund raisers, on line or in person. BSD unix makes it annual budget with on-line fund raising. And when I say give back after the fact, its not lip service. Not only did we intend to give back to e17/e18/3x but we have budgeted for it. In fact we have added LINE ITEMS on our budget to cover quarterly donations for open source code that we use. that's great - if you survived that long. :) And it makes scene for us. Open source developers develop the base product and we put a functional and good looking wrapper on it for end users. Open source teams do what they do well, which is develop core technologies, and we do what we do well, sell and market. ( and build functional and good looking wrappers) So, what do we do now? Find a new desktop? But we have been working on e17 /e18 for a while Our second choice was QT as they have a commercial license. On top of finding a new desktop, now I have to adjust our budgets. I have to take out a line item. Not a happy camper. i have to say that if you made your plans based on the ASSUMPTION of license without reading all the details - then this is the price you pay. we've been very plain and up-front about the licences of efl components. we have over the years even tried to make it easier. with the efl tree now it lists them in a single location as a nice compact list. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 19:14 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: this was on purpose. The recent authors (cedric, me, tom...) decided they didn't like BSD as the ancient and the license was hurting us as nobody gave back. Then when we created Eina to unify data types in ecore and evas, we proposed to do it in LGPL and people accepted, raster was okay with that and so we did. Thanks for the explanation. Just out of curiosity, did it help? I mean, did you get more people to contribute back to the project now? we couldn't change the license of the whole code to LGPL because of practical issues (we'd have to contact and get permission of all authors), then as the BSD licensed code is basically casted into LGPL automatically there is no problem in mixing them. You should consider the thing as LGPL. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas, Thanks for pointing that out. Good question. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Hello, i have a question concerning the licensing of EFL. What it the thought behind releasing Eina with LGPL whereas almost everything else is under BSD? I mean, Eina is the most fundamental part out of all, but has the least permissive license. And as Eina is making heavy use of inline functions, that implicitly forces the BSD licensed parts to LGPL as well, or? Best regards, Thomas -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:03:02 +0100 Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk said: On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 19:07 +0100, Thomas Strobel wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 21:51 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 19:14 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: this was on purpose. The recent authors (cedric, me, tom...) decided they didn't like BSD as the ancient and the license was hurting us as nobody gave back. Then when we created Eina to unify data types in ecore and evas, we proposed to do it in LGPL and people accepted, raster was okay with that and so we did. Thanks for the explanation. Just out of curiosity, did it help? I mean, did you get more people to contribute back to the project now? I doubt all the companies that did contribute lots of resources would have done if it was bsd. It's hard to ensure the results of a change would have in the future, but companies would just ignore it because of license (ie: my company) to others that would likely keep private changes because they were allowed to. given the way big companies work, I doubt samsung would contribute everything they did if they didn't have to... it's a hard and painful process, they had to do, i guess they would just skip if they were allowed. Thanks! It was very interesting to follow the heated discussion about this topic. It seems difficult to estimate the consequences of the different licenses though. I just wonder what your intentions are for the future. Do you plan to push everything towards LGPL? The BSD license would be perfectly fine with doing so (same argument as used for moving certain parts of EFL to LGPL already). Or are you hesitating because you want to keep a way to move back to BSD? Looking at it from the outside (non-contributor so far), it would be clearer to have one license only, or at least have the less permissive license for the less fundamental parts (that is opposite to how it is right now). From how the code is structured, the license does not really matter at the moment as you can easily link and integrate closed-source parts. But it would be nice to know where you're heading to. Or, is your intention to put a price onto not contributing back, but leaving the opportunity to do so? That is by asking e.g. companies who want to use EFL commercially to at least take the effort in keeping their closed-source parts separated and thus making it more cumbersome to manage. If so, nicely done! the intentions for the future is to merge efl. the split thing is just not what the vast majority of people (packagers, developers etc.) want. the vast majority find it a major pain in the rear - a barier of entry, a hinderance to learning etc. - so such a move ultimately will mean we compile into far fewer library files. simple leagal necessity will be that efl as a whole becomes lgpl as that is the compatible superset of licenses. but actually we are raising the price of a fork. not by license - but by motion. our merge of efl alone has effectively chopped off at the knees any prior forks (except elementary). the cost of maintaing those just went up. putting eo into everything also raised the price majorly. by simply moving along so rapidly, a fork becomes a massive cost to maintain. giving back and keping up is the only sensible option for anything other than a flash-in-the-pan effort. and for flash-in-th-pan efforts... we do have a license. :) there is a boundary for efl where you are free to plug in thins of any license. the api boundary. that means anything hat uses efl/elm's header files and links to the shared libs. this ALSO includes modules/plugns. you CAN provide closed module additions/replacements. modules are intended to cover several uses - moving shared lib dependencies of to an optional component only loaded on demand, create the ability to compile efl once and once only with all featues on and then split up package-wise your specific needs like x11 vs wayland so only the modules relevant are installed, as well as to act as a unified api wrapper to simplify internal code - eg to talk to something that loads images with the single same api no matter the loader or format. -- - Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am -- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)ras...@rasterman.com -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 22:00:25 -0300 Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira vini.ipsma...@gmail.com said: Em Sáb, 2014-01-25 às 00:54 +, jose_...@juno.com escreveu: [...] But don't worry, I intend to give code back for everyone to use! and even donate money back to you once I'm financially successful!! Lots of companies will do this, and hence, E-BSD will flourish! Get it?! Yes, that's accurate. I believe this is what Sony did to the FreeBSD developers after the success of PS4. actually... i think he's missing sarcasm tags :) -- - Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am -- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)ras...@rasterman.com -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:00:19 +0100 Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk said: Hello, i have a question concerning the licensing of EFL. What it the thought behind releasing Eina with LGPL whereas almost everything else is under BSD? I mean, Eina is the most fundamental part out of all, but has the least permissive license. And as Eina is making heavy use of inline functions, that implicitly forces the BSD licensed parts to LGPL as well, or? inline funcs do not - same with enums structs etc. yes - you can ARGUE this - but the intent and wording of the license do not imply this. glib has used lgpl for years and exposes inline funcs in headers. and glib (and gt in turn etc.) have had mountains of closed apps/tools built on top and never a court case (that i know of) about it. if it is truly a problem (and to date i have yet to see that), then i am sure we can provide clarification, as i know it is the intent to be clear about efls boundaries and where efl starts and stops, and though the headers are part of efl, they DECLARE a way of interacting with efl and anyone #including public headers installed in order to use efl is not suddenly a derivative work by our intent. that app or library is definitely outside the bounds of being covered by any license in efl - bsd or lgpl. -- - Codito, ergo sum - I code, therefore I am -- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)ras...@rasterman.com -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 23:05:21 + Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com said: I have to agree with David's post. We chose you over other options because of the BSD license. It gave us legal protections we could no get with LGPL. BSD Allows start ups to raise funds. Why? because investors are not going to fund a company that can't protects its code. Remember there is no legal ambiguity with the BSD license and plenty with the LGPL. And Legal ambiguity is the kiss of death for investors. With success, funds can be donated back to the base project when using a BSD license. To be honest... I think you cut your nuts off. You could have focused on marketing your professional consulting services or development services and raised funds that way. You could also have modified the licensee or added a commercial license. QT seems to be doing very well. You could have also been genuine and simply asked for financial assistance. You could have had fund raisers, on line or in person. BSD unix makes it annual budget with on-line fund raising. And when I say give back after the fact, its not lip service. Not only did we intend to give back to e17/e18/3x but we have budgeted for it. In fact we have added LINE ITEMS on our budget to cover quarterly donations for open source code that we use. And it makes scene for us. Open source developers develop the base product and we put a functional and good looking wrapper on it for end users. Open source teams do what they do well, which is develop core technologies, and we do what we do well, sell and market. ( and build functional and good looking wrappers) So, what do we do now? Find a new desktop? But we have been working on e17 /e18 for a while Our second choice was QT as they have a commercial license. On top of finding a new desktop, now I have to adjust our budgets. I have to take out a line item. Not a happy camper. btw - if your product ships any gpl binaries (if it's a distribution or hardware that of course uses a distribution) then you're in the same bucket anyway - if you ship a linux kernel - same problem. it will be very hard to build a fully functioning system without hitting some gpl binary somewhere (it is possible but painful). so why is lgpl a problem? as i said to thomas - i am sure if you find that the headers are a problem we can clarify it. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 19:14 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: this was on purpose. The recent authors (cedric, me, tom...) decided they didn't like BSD as the ancient and the license was hurting us as nobody gave back. Then when we created Eina to unify data types in ecore and evas, we proposed to do it in LGPL and people accepted, raster was okay with that and so we did. Thanks for the explanation. Just out of curiosity, did it help? I mean, did you get more people to contribute back to the project now? we couldn't change the license of the whole code to LGPL because of practical issues (we'd have to contact and get permission of all authors), then as the BSD licensed code is basically casted into LGPL automatically there is no problem in mixing them. You should consider the thing as LGPL. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas, Thanks for pointing that out. Good question. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Hello, i have a question concerning the licensing of EFL. What it the thought behind releasing Eina with LGPL whereas almost everything else is under BSD? I mean, Eina is the most fundamental part out of all, but has the least permissive license. And as Eina is making heavy use of inline functions, that implicitly forces the BSD licensed parts to LGPL as well, or? Best regards, Thomas -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
Thanks for offering a clarification Carsten. We may take you up on that. On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.comwrote: On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 23:05:21 + Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com said: I have to agree with David's post. We chose you over other options because of the BSD license. It gave us legal protections we could no get with LGPL. BSD Allows start ups to raise funds. Why? because investors are not going to fund a company that can't protects its code. Remember there is no legal ambiguity with the BSD license and plenty with the LGPL. And Legal ambiguity is the kiss of death for investors. With success, funds can be donated back to the base project when using a BSD license. To be honest... I think you cut your nuts off. You could have focused on marketing your professional consulting services or development services and raised funds that way. You could also have modified the licensee or added a commercial license. QT seems to be doing very well. You could have also been genuine and simply asked for financial assistance. You could have had fund raisers, on line or in person. BSD unix makes it annual budget with on-line fund raising. And when I say give back after the fact, its not lip service. Not only did we intend to give back to e17/e18/3x but we have budgeted for it. In fact we have added LINE ITEMS on our budget to cover quarterly donations for open source code that we use. And it makes scene for us. Open source developers develop the base product and we put a functional and good looking wrapper on it for end users. Open source teams do what they do well, which is develop core technologies, and we do what we do well, sell and market. ( and build functional and good looking wrappers) So, what do we do now? Find a new desktop? But we have been working on e17 /e18 for a while Our second choice was QT as they have a commercial license. On top of finding a new desktop, now I have to adjust our budgets. I have to take out a line item. Not a happy camper. btw - if your product ships any gpl binaries (if it's a distribution or hardware that of course uses a distribution) then you're in the same bucket anyway - if you ship a linux kernel - same problem. it will be very hard to build a fully functioning system without hitting some gpl binary somewhere (it is possible but painful). so why is lgpl a problem? as i said to thomas - i am sure if you find that the headers are a problem we can clarify it. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 19:14 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: this was on purpose. The recent authors (cedric, me, tom...) decided they didn't like BSD as the ancient and the license was hurting us as nobody gave back. Then when we created Eina to unify data types in ecore and evas, we proposed to do it in LGPL and people accepted, raster was okay with that and so we did. Thanks for the explanation. Just out of curiosity, did it help? I mean, did you get more people to contribute back to the project now? we couldn't change the license of the whole code to LGPL because of practical issues (we'd have to contact and get permission of all authors), then as the BSD licensed code is basically casted into LGPL automatically there is no problem in mixing them. You should consider the thing as LGPL. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas, Thanks for pointing that out. Good question. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Hello, i have a question concerning the licensing of EFL. What it the thought behind releasing Eina with LGPL whereas almost everything else is under BSD? I mean, Eina is the most fundamental part out of all, but has the least permissive license. And as Eina is making heavy use of inline functions, that implicitly forces the BSD licensed parts to LGPL as well, or? Best regards, Thomas -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
Thomas, Thanks for pointing that out. Good question. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Hello, i have a question concerning the licensing of EFL. What it the thought behind releasing Eina with LGPL whereas almost everything else is under BSD? I mean, Eina is the most fundamental part out of all, but has the least permissive license. And as Eina is making heavy use of inline functions, that implicitly forces the BSD licensed parts to LGPL as well, or? Best regards, Thomas -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
this was on purpose. The recent authors (cedric, me, tom...) decided they didn't like BSD as the ancient and the license was hurting us as nobody gave back. Then when we created Eina to unify data types in ecore and evas, we proposed to do it in LGPL and people accepted, raster was okay with that and so we did. we couldn't change the license of the whole code to LGPL because of practical issues (we'd have to contact and get permission of all authors), then as the BSD licensed code is basically casted into LGPL automatically there is no problem in mixing them. You should consider the thing as LGPL. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas, Thanks for pointing that out. Good question. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Hello, i have a question concerning the licensing of EFL. What it the thought behind releasing Eina with LGPL whereas almost everything else is under BSD? I mean, Eina is the most fundamental part out of all, but has the least permissive license. And as Eina is making heavy use of inline functions, that implicitly forces the BSD licensed parts to LGPL as well, or? Best regards, Thomas -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri -- Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202 Contact: http://www.gustavobarbieri.com.br/contact -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 19:14:08 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri barbi...@gmail.com wrote: this was on purpose. The recent authors (cedric, me, tom...) decided they didn't like BSD as the ancient and the license was hurting us as nobody gave back. I'm curious, do you have actual numbers showing if that actually increased the amount of people giving back? And numbers for the amount of people that stopped giving back coz they didn't like LGPL going viral on them? Licence bigotry cuts both ways. Then when we created Eina to unify data types in ecore and evas, we proposed to do it in LGPL and people accepted, raster was okay with that and so we did. There was the usual bun fight when it happened, it wasn't just blindly accepted by all. we couldn't change the license of the whole code to LGPL because of practical issues (we'd have to contact and get permission of all authors), then as the BSD licensed code is basically casted into LGPL automatically there is no problem in mixing them. So basically what you are saying is that instead of asking every one, you enforced it by legal means. Even on those that objected. You should consider the thing as LGPL. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas, Thanks for pointing that out. Good question. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Hello, i have a question concerning the licensing of EFL. What it the thought behind releasing Eina with LGPL whereas almost everything else is under BSD? I mean, Eina is the most fundamental part out of all, but has the least permissive license. And as Eina is making heavy use of inline functions, that implicitly forces the BSD licensed parts to LGPL as well, or? This raises an interesting point. Inline functions would then essentially change LGPL to GPL. Are there legal opinions on this, and has it been tested in courts? This sort of thing is why some people prefer ancient BSD style licences and other more permissive ones. It opens up an entire legal quagmire, and some people just want things to be simple. There are about as many people that think xGPL is a good thing as think it's a bad thing, and likely even more that don't care either way. -- A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world. signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 19:14 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: this was on purpose. The recent authors (cedric, me, tom...) decided they didn't like BSD as the ancient and the license was hurting us as nobody gave back. Then when we created Eina to unify data types in ecore and evas, we proposed to do it in LGPL and people accepted, raster was okay with that and so we did. Thanks for the explanation. Just out of curiosity, did it help? I mean, did you get more people to contribute back to the project now? we couldn't change the license of the whole code to LGPL because of practical issues (we'd have to contact and get permission of all authors), then as the BSD licensed code is basically casted into LGPL automatically there is no problem in mixing them. You should consider the thing as LGPL. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas, Thanks for pointing that out. Good question. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Hello, i have a question concerning the licensing of EFL. What it the thought behind releasing Eina with LGPL whereas almost everything else is under BSD? I mean, Eina is the most fundamental part out of all, but has the least permissive license. And as Eina is making heavy use of inline functions, that implicitly forces the BSD licensed parts to LGPL as well, or? Best regards, Thomas -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
I have to agree with David's post. We chose you over other options because of the BSD license. It gave us legal protections we could no get with LGPL. BSD Allows start ups to raise funds. Why? because investors are not going to fund a company that can't protects its code. Remember there is no legal ambiguity with the BSD license and plenty with the LGPL. And Legal ambiguity is the kiss of death for investors. With success, funds can be donated back to the base project when using a BSD license. To be honest... I think you cut your nuts off. You could have focused on marketing your professional consulting services or development services and raised funds that way. You could also have modified the licensee or added a commercial license. QT seems to be doing very well. You could have also been genuine and simply asked for financial assistance. You could have had fund raisers, on line or in person. BSD unix makes it annual budget with on-line fund raising. And when I say give back after the fact, its not lip service. Not only did we intend to give back to e17/e18/3x but we have budgeted for it. In fact we have added LINE ITEMS on our budget to cover quarterly donations for open source code that we use. And it makes scene for us. Open source developers develop the base product and we put a functional and good looking wrapper on it for end users. Open source teams do what they do well, which is develop core technologies, and we do what we do well, sell and market. ( and build functional and good looking wrappers) So, what do we do now? Find a new desktop? But we have been working on e17 /e18 for a while Our second choice was QT as they have a commercial license. On top of finding a new desktop, now I have to adjust our budgets. I have to take out a line item. Not a happy camper. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 19:14 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: this was on purpose. The recent authors (cedric, me, tom...) decided they didn't like BSD as the ancient and the license was hurting us as nobody gave back. Then when we created Eina to unify data types in ecore and evas, we proposed to do it in LGPL and people accepted, raster was okay with that and so we did. Thanks for the explanation. Just out of curiosity, did it help? I mean, did you get more people to contribute back to the project now? we couldn't change the license of the whole code to LGPL because of practical issues (we'd have to contact and get permission of all authors), then as the BSD licensed code is basically casted into LGPL automatically there is no problem in mixing them. You should consider the thing as LGPL. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas, Thanks for pointing that out. Good question. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Hello, i have a question concerning the licensing of EFL. What it the thought behind releasing Eina with LGPL whereas almost everything else is under BSD? I mean, Eina is the most fundamental part out of all, but has the least permissive license. And as Eina is making heavy use of inline functions, that implicitly forces the BSD licensed parts to LGPL as well, or? Best regards, Thomas -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:55 PM, David Seikel onef...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 19:14:08 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri barbi...@gmail.com wrote: this was on purpose. The recent authors (cedric, me, tom...) decided they didn't like BSD as the ancient and the license was hurting us as nobody gave back. I'm curious, do you have actual numbers showing if that actually increased the amount of people giving back? And numbers for the amount of people that stopped giving back coz they didn't like LGPL going viral on them? Licence bigotry cuts both ways. 0 x 0 helps? before we had zero, then we had all of the customers of my company, plus my own company developments, plus openmoko (when raster was there), then samsung, free.fr, etc. the guys that left didn't make much of a difference, new blood got in and lots of code was done (gone etk/ewl, in elementary, gone ecore_data, in eina, ...) Then when we created Eina to unify data types in ecore and evas, we proposed to do it in LGPL and people accepted, raster was okay with that and so we did. There was the usual bun fight when it happened, it wasn't just blindly accepted by all. that's always the case, and the reason why it was done this way (not changing the whole project) we couldn't change the license of the whole code to LGPL because of practical issues (we'd have to contact and get permission of all authors), then as the BSD licensed code is basically casted into LGPL automatically there is no problem in mixing them. So basically what you are saying is that instead of asking every one, you enforced it by legal means. Even on those that objected. they CAN'T object to that because they explicitly choose a license that allows that. That's the stupid part you can take my code and do whatever you want, just keep this copyright notice and then your code is modified (under the same license, bsd) to use other code that doesn't allow this shit, and people are amused... ahahaha all in all people were getting the code and not even making the changes publicly. -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri -- Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202 Contact: http://www.gustavobarbieri.com.br/contact -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 19:14 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: this was on purpose. The recent authors (cedric, me, tom...) decided they didn't like BSD as the ancient and the license was hurting us as nobody gave back. Then when we created Eina to unify data types in ecore and evas, we proposed to do it in LGPL and people accepted, raster was okay with that and so we did. Thanks for the explanation. Just out of curiosity, did it help? I mean, did you get more people to contribute back to the project now? I doubt all the companies that did contribute lots of resources would have done if it was bsd. It's hard to ensure the results of a change would have in the future, but companies would just ignore it because of license (ie: my company) to others that would likely keep private changes because they were allowed to. given the way big companies work, I doubt samsung would contribute everything they did if they didn't have to... it's a hard and painful process, they had to do, i guess they would just skip if they were allowed. -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri -- Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202 Contact: http://www.gustavobarbieri.com.br/contact -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com wrote: I have to agree with David's post. We chose you over other options because of the BSD license. It gave us legal protections we could no get with LGPL. BSD Allows start ups to raise funds. Why? because investors are not going to fund a company that can't protects its code. Remember there is no legal ambiguity with the BSD license and plenty with the LGPL. And Legal ambiguity is the kiss of death for investors. With success, funds can be donated back to the base project when using a BSD license. this is the most full of bullshit email I've read in years. Please check reality, nowadays funds are not raised based on code anymore ehehehhee... are you stuck into the 90's? Given most of today's startups are not even offering binaries of their code to others, because the bulk of intelligence runs on servers, this is irrelevant (unless you use Affero GPL). Then code for mobiles (where you send people binaries) are in a completely new platform/language and in this case EFL is irrelevant as well... so let's cut this bullshit. not to say I doubt I'll live to the day that we find a good soul that got money from investors and is allowed to contribute it in decent amounts to an opensource project. If you have investors they will keep the money to the essentials to bring product to masses and then profit, we the community will stay there hoping for something that never happens. To be honest... I think you cut your nuts off. You could have focused on marketing your professional consulting services or development services and raised funds that way. oh really? but guess what, bsd hurts that. It's tons of times easier to do if it's lgpl. I _DID_ that, I had a company doing exact that, then it was so successful we were booked by major companies, to the point Intel acquired it :-D seriously, if I had bsd I had nothing. As a service provider the product belongs to the client (unless you convince them to pay something that will belong to you) and you can't force them to give back nothing. with lgpl you can force them to, at least, give back the changes to infrastructure (efl, kernel, ...) and you then use this better technology to provide new customer with better base and deliver new services. You could also have modified the licensee or added a commercial license. QT seems to be doing very well. you're definitely stuck into the 90s. You could have also been genuine and simply asked for financial assistance. You could have had fund raisers, on line or in person. BSD unix makes it annual budget with on-line fund raising. WAT? And when I say give back after the fact, its not lip service. Not only did we intend to give back to e17/e18/3x but we have budgeted for it. In fact we have added LINE ITEMS on our budget to cover quarterly donations for open source code that we use. And it makes scene for us. Open source developers develop the base product and we put a functional and good looking wrapper on it for end users. Open source teams do what they do well, which is develop core technologies, and we do what we do well, sell and market. ( and build functional and good looking wrappers) oh dear, different universe? Look there, the originator of that license.. the super-successful BSD! It managed to be the most successful server OS, then got every other OS from the embedded... but not. BSD were closer to achieve success in server (FreeBSD) and embedded (NetBSD) than Linux, but their license (and developer mindset -- I'd add) brought then to the current situation. The most successful BSD out there is Darwin, that diverged from public years (decade?) ago... then a company may do something, and the community is still hoping for something back (money, technology). So, what do we do now? Find a new desktop? But we have been working on e17 /e18 for a while Our second choice was QT as they have a commercial license. On top of finding a new desktop, now I have to adjust our budgets. I have to take out a line item. Not a happy camper. What are you talking about? Define our budget and we have... This happened in 2008, why are you saying this in 2014? E17/18, Elementary... ALL were released in that state, depending on LGPL. -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri -- Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202 Contact: http://www.gustavobarbieri.com.br/contact -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On 01/25/2014 10:16 AM, Andrew F wrote: Thanks simon, Is your company in America ? Thanks. Australia, we sell some products into America though On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Simon si...@simotek.net wrote: On 01/25/2014 09:35 AM, Andrew F wrote: I have to agree with David's post. We chose you over other options because of the BSD license. It gave us legal protections we could no get with LGPL. BSD Allows start ups to raise funds. Why? because investors are not going to fund a company that can't protects its code. Remember there is no legal ambiguity with the BSD license and plenty with the LGPL. And Legal ambiguity is the kiss of death for investors. With success, funds can be donated back to the base project when using a BSD license. To be honest... I think you cut your nuts off. You could have focused on marketing your professional consulting services or development services and raised funds that way. You could also have modified the licensee or added a commercial license. QT seems to be doing very well. You could have also been genuine and simply asked for financial assistance. You could have had fund raisers, on line or in person. BSD unix makes it annual budget with on-line fund raising. And when I say give back after the fact, its not lip service. Not only did we intend to give back to e17/e18/3x but we have budgeted for it. In fact we have added LINE ITEMS on our budget to cover quarterly donations for open source code that we use. And it makes scene for us. Open source developers develop the base product and we put a functional and good looking wrapper on it for end users. Open source teams do what they do well, which is develop core technologies, and we do what we do well, sell and market. ( and build functional and good looking wrappers) So, what do we do now? Find a new desktop? But we have been working on e17 /e18 for a while Our second choice was QT as they have a commercial license. You can use Qt to write applications without a commercial license, they have a extension to there lGPL license that clarify's that using enums / function calls / whatever from public header files is considered general use and does not make a application written with those libraries a derivative work. In short you don't need a commercial license to write applications that use Qt (According to my company's legal team). I have seen other toolkits that clarify the apparent ambiguity in the lGPL by making public header files licensed bsd but everything else lGPL. Cheers Simon On top of finding a new desktop, now I have to adjust our budgets. I have to take out a line item. Not a happy camper. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 19:14 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: this was on purpose. The recent authors (cedric, me, tom...) decided they didn't like BSD as the ancient and the license was hurting us as nobody gave back. Then when we created Eina to unify data types in ecore and evas, we proposed to do it in LGPL and people accepted, raster was okay with that and so we did. Thanks for the explanation. Just out of curiosity, did it help? I mean, did you get more people to contribute back to the project now? we couldn't change the license of the whole code to LGPL because of practical issues (we'd have to contact and get permission of all authors), then as the BSD licensed code is basically casted into LGPL automatically there is no problem in mixing them. You should consider the thing as LGPL. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas, Thanks for pointing that out. Good question. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Strobel ts...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Hello, i have a question concerning the licensing of EFL. What it the thought behind releasing Eina with LGPL whereas almost everything else is under BSD? I mean, Eina is the most fundamental part out of all, but has the least permissive license. And as Eina is making heavy use of inline functions, that implicitly forces the BSD licensed parts to LGPL as well, or? Best regards, Thomas -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
Gustavo, you just don't understand the sublime complex logic. Let me paraphrase it for you and maybe you'll see the BSD light: I want you to change your code to be under the BSD license so that I have the legal ability to copy all or part of it in my work, or to extend it in significant ways and use that in my work, and be able to keep all your original code or my changes to it hidden from everyone. But don't worry, I intend to give code back for everyone to use! and even donate money back to you once I'm financially successful!! Lots of companies will do this, and hence, E-BSD will flourish! Get it?! -- Original Message -- From: Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri barbi...@gmail.com To: Enlightenment developer list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD? Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 22:06:27 -0200 On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Andrew F andrewfriedman...@gmail.com wrote: I have to agree with David's post. We chose you over other options because of the BSD license. It gave us legal protections we could no get with LGPL. BSD Allows start ups to raise funds. Why? because investors are not going to fund a company that can't protects its code. Remember there is no legal ambiguity with the BSD license and plenty with the LGPL. And Legal ambiguity is the kiss of death for investors. With success, funds can be donated back to the base project when using a BSD license. this is the most full of bullshit email I've read in years. Please check reality, nowadays funds are not raised based on code anymore ehehehhee... are you stuck into the 90's? Given most of today's startups are not even offering binaries of their code to others, because the bulk of intelligence runs on servers, this is irrelevant (unless you use Affero GPL). Then code for mobiles (where you send people binaries) are in a completely new platform/language and in this case EFL is irrelevant as well... so let's cut this bullshit. not to say I doubt I'll live to the day that we find a good soul that got money from investors and is allowed to contribute it in decent amounts to an opensource project. If you have investors they will keep the money to the essentials to bring product to masses and then profit, we the community will stay there hoping for something that never happens. To be honest... I think you cut your nuts off. You could have focused on marketing your professional consulting services or development services and raised funds that way. oh really? but guess what, bsd hurts that. It's tons of times easier to do if it's lgpl. I _DID_ that, I had a company doing exact that, then it was so successful we were booked by major companies, to the point Intel acquired it :-D seriously, if I had bsd I had nothing. As a service provider the product belongs to the client (unless you convince them to pay something that will belong to you) and you can't force them to give back nothing. with lgpl you can force them to, at least, give back the changes to infrastructure (efl, kernel, ...) and you then use this better technology to provide new customer with better base and deliver new services. You could also have modified the licensee or added a commercial license. QT seems to be doing very well. you're definitely stuck into the 90s. You could have also been genuine and simply asked for financial assistance. You could have had fund raisers, on line or in person. BSD unix makes it annual budget with on-line fund raising. WAT? And when I say give back after the fact, its not lip service. Not only did we intend to give back to e17/e18/3x but we have budgeted for it. In fact we have added LINE ITEMS on our budget to cover quarterly donations for open source code that we use. And it makes scene for us. Open source developers develop the base product and we put a functional and good looking wrapper on it for end users. Open source teams do what they do well, which is develop core technologies, and we do what we do well, sell and market. ( and build functional and good looking wrappers) oh dear, different universe? Look there, the originator of that license.. the super-successful BSD! It managed to be the most successful server OS, then got every other OS from the embedded... but not. BSD were closer to achieve success in server (FreeBSD) and embedded (NetBSD) than Linux, but their license (and developer mindset -- I'd add) brought then to the current situation. The most successful BSD out there is Darwin, that diverged from public years (decade?) ago... then a company may do something, and the community is still hoping for something back (money, technology). So, what do we do now? Find a new desktop? But we have been working on e17 /e18 for a while Our second choice was QT as they have a commercial license. On top of finding a new desktop, now I have to adjust our budgets. I have to take out
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
Em Sáb, 2014-01-25 às 00:54 +, jose_...@juno.com escreveu: [...] But don't worry, I intend to give code back for everyone to use! and even donate money back to you once I'm financially successful!! Lots of companies will do this, and hence, E-BSD will flourish! Get it?! Yes, that's accurate. I believe this is what Sony did to the FreeBSD developers after the success of PS4. -- Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira https://about.me/vinipsmaker signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Why is Eina licensed under LGPL instead of BSD?
On 01/25/2014 11:24 AM, jose_...@juno.com wrote: Gustavo, you just don't understand the sublime complex logic. Let me paraphrase it for you and maybe you'll see the BSD light: I want you to change your code to be under the BSD license so that I have the legal ability to copy all or part of it in my work, or to extend it in significant ways and use that in my work, and be able to keep all your original code or my changes to it hidden from everyone. But don't worry, I intend to give code back for everyone to use! and even donate money back to you once I'm financially successful!! Lots of companies will do this, and hence, E-BSD will flourish! Get it?! Most people would call copying a library into your work doing it wrong, you link to the library dynamically you have no issues with lGPL. I doubt you would have any business sensitive changes to efl that couldn't be put into a plugin. And if you have other minor changes you need to do all you are required to do is publish your source code somewhere, anywhere (of course it would be beneficial if you contributed it back to the project). What you are saying makes very little sense in terms of libraries, especially the efl which has a plugin system for most things. Simn -- CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
