On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:37:48 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting David Seikel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:22:29 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The recent mail out to
> > EFL authors proves that some will not agree, and that some are no
I think this discussion has dragged on long enough. There is clearly
not a consensus on the list, which we should require for any decision
of this magnitude. License flamewars are infamous for draining
developer motivation on a project as well as burning up precious time
for all team members. As it
Quoting David Seikel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:22:29 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> > I know :), I thought we are talking about the core-libs, of course,
>> > I hope that ewl will stay under the BSD license.
>>
>> There is no reason that all the
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:22:29 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I know :), I thought we are talking about the core-libs, of course,
> > I hope that ewl will stay under the BSD license.
>
> There is no reason that all the libs / apps move to another licence.
Actually the
> I know :), I thought we are talking about the core-libs, of course, I
> hope that ewl will stay under the BSD license.
There is no reason that all the libs / apps move to another licence. Ewl
can keep the BSD licence, there is no problem for that. The discussion was
more about the core efl.
On 27-Jul-08, at 5:54 AM, Jose Gonzalez wrote:
> As you never cared about building a large community of foss
> developers,
> you have thus helped to create a largely dysfunctional project
> starved of
> resources. That's as much a part of E's legacy as anything good it
> may have
> stoo
Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 July 2008, at 19:25:42 (+0200),
> Vincent Torri wrote:
>
>
>> I've learned a lot about the licences reading these mails, and it seems
>> that the fact is not "such licence is a hindrance" but "such licence can
>> give us developpers". That's different.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:08:03 -0700 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> Assuming no one using another license ever wants to use that code. If
> Peter writes a really badass EWL app and LGPL's or GPL's it, that code
> could not be used in E or Evas (unless Peter himself relicensed it)
>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:53:15 +0200 "Jorge Luis Zapata Muga"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> I have a question here, where is the authorship then? if i have an app
> A licensed with L, i guess im free to relicense another (or the same)
> app with license M right? and if so, being myself the author
On 25-Jul-08, at 7:48 PM, Jose Gonzalez wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>
>> to it and the original code was LGPL. But would you share code with
>> someone, that doesn't share code with you?
>>
>
> Good point. And that's precisely why many people don't like to
> contribute to bsd licensed projects.
2008/7/26 Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Peter wrote:
>
>> to it and the original code was LGPL. But would you share code with
>> someone, that doesn't share code with you?
>>
>
> Good point. And that's precisely why many people don't like to
> contribute to bsd licensed projects. In t
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:16:17 -0700 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "We" do not own anything because "we" are not a legal entity. So
> there is no such thing as "our" code. There is raster's code, and
> there's devilhorns' code, and there's your code...but there's no
> "our" code.
Jose Gonzalez schrieb:
>Peter wrote:
>
>
>> to it and the original code was LGPL. But would you share code with
>> someone, that doesn't share code with you?
>>
>>
>
> Good point. And that's precisely why many people don't like to
> contribute to bsd licensed projects. In the
Peter wrote:
> to it and the original code was LGPL. But would you share code with
> someone, that doesn't share code with you?
>
Good point. And that's precisely why many people don't like to
contribute to bsd licensed projects. In the case of corporations, this
is an even more seri
Cedric BAIL schrieb:
> Yes, you can't move code from a LGPL library into a BSD licenced
> application. In fact, if you want to move code from a LGPL library to
> an application you should "enable" section 3 and this application
> should be GPL, but that's the exact purpose of the LGPL. LGPL give th
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 14:33:25 (+0200),
Cedric BAIL wrote:
> Yes. That's the exact purpose of the GPL/LPGL.
I know what the purpose is. I've read both quite thoroughly.
> Worrying about the reuse of the code is a good thing. But imho when
> we move code around, most of the time it's our o
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 15:56:20 (+0200),
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
> I think all the above points are frustrating , why? simply because
> *i* dont want that my effort makes others take profit and dont give
> anything to me. Of course you'll be proud that your
> library/application is used
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 15:49:01 (+0200),
Cedric BAIL wrote:
> That's just wrong.
No, it's not "just wrong." You may not agree with it, but that
doesn't make it wrong, particularly if you don't offer any
counterexamples or evidence to prove it.
> Maintaining a fork is in my opinion complete
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:03 AM, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 01:53:24 (+0200),
> Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
>
>> Well, this thread has of course mutated from its original form, but
>> has raised several good opinions, and in fact it has turned into
>
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:03 AM, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 01:53:24 (+0200),
> Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
>> If you think that a project is successful based on how many
>> companies have used your software then of course actually licensing
>> your
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 00:41:51 (+1000), Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>> if this is for code going into an existing application and/or
>> library he is right. code is to be the same license as the existing
>> tree - if
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 00:41:51 (+1000), Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>> if this is for code going into an existing application and/or
>> library he is right. code is to be the same license as the existing
>> tree - if
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 00:41:51 (+1000),
> Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>> if this is for code going into an existing application and/or
>> library he is right. code is to be the same license as the existing
>> tree - i
dan sinclair schrieb:
> On 24-Jul-08, at 5:26 PM, Peter Wehrfritz wrote:
>
>
>> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri schrieb:
>>
>>> One thing I'd like to see here is the opinion of those that do most
>>> of
>>> the code these days, guys like englebass, dj2, pfritz and raster. You
>>> wrote lots of c
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Vincent Torri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've learned a lot about the licences reading these mails, and it seems
> that the fact is not "such licence is a hindrance" but "such licence can
> give us developpers". That's different. So, from what i've understood,
On 24-Jul-08, at 1:25 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
>> i have to say now.. success in the open source world is utterly
>> UNRELATED to
>> what kind of open source license you use. it is a hindrance if you
>> are not
>> open. in fact GPL as a license for a library can be a hindrance. i
>> could qu
On 24-Jul-08, at 5:26 PM, Peter Wehrfritz wrote:
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri schrieb:
>> One thing I'd like to see here is the opinion of those that do most
>> of
>> the code these days, guys like englebass, dj2, pfritz and raster. You
>> wrote lots of code already, and continue to do, what do y
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 01:53:24 (+0200),
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
> Well, this thread has of course mutated from its original form, but
> has raised several good opinions, and in fact it has turned into
> "what do we do internally" with the efl.
I tried to point people back to your orig
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 01:53:15 (+0200),
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
> > Assuming no one using another license ever wants to use that code.
> > If Peter writes a really badass EWL app and LGPL's or GPL's it,
> > that code could not be used in E or Evas (unless Peter himself
> > relicensed i
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 24 July 2008, at 19:25:42 (+0200),
> > Vincent Torri wrote:
> >
> >> I've learned a lot about the licences reading
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 July 2008, at 19:25:42 (+0200),
> Vincent Torri wrote:
>
>> I've learned a lot about the licences reading these mails, and it seems
>> that the fact is not "such licence is a hindrance" but "such licence
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 00:41:51 (+1000),
> Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>
>> if this is for code going into an existing application and/or
>> library he is right. code is to be the same license as the existing
>> tree -
On Thursday, 24 July 2008, at 19:25:42 (+0200),
Vincent Torri wrote:
> I've learned a lot about the licences reading these mails, and it seems
> that the fact is not "such licence is a hindrance" but "such licence can
> give us developpers". That's different. So, from what i've understood, wrt
On Thursday, 24 July 2008, at 11:50:52 (-0300),
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> I must say I agree with you, I do think the license is something
> that matters and LGPL is better for something as EFL.
"Better" in what ways? Other than simply being able to say "we're
LGPL," how does it improve
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri schrieb:
> One thing I'd like to see here is the opinion of those that do most of
> the code these days, guys like englebass, dj2, pfritz and raster. You
> wrote lots of code already, and continue to do, what do you think
> about relicensing the code under LGPL?
>
>
I'm
On Friday, 25 July 2008, at 00:41:51 (+1000),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> if this is for code going into an existing application and/or
> library he is right. code is to be the same license as the existing
> tree - if it is to be a different license - it cannot go into the
> tree. this is simply sta
> i have to say now.. success in the open source world is utterly UNRELATED to
> what kind of open source license you use. it is a hindrance if you are not
> open. in fact GPL as a license for a library can be a hindrance. i could quote
> lots of examples - but i've been around these traps for a v
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:30:04 -0500 "Nathan Ingersoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This issue is a long and complex one, and I really have no desire to
> > get into the specifics of it. You and Nathan and Car
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:20:55 -0700 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> Last time I spoke with raster about it, he still felt the same way.
> External projects and products, especially those run by commercial
> entities, are likely and welcome to use the license of their own
> choosing,
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:57:10 +0200 "Cedric BAIL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
just to summaries - i am not in agrement lgpl will help over bsd, BUT... i also
have nothing against lgpl... i DO have a lot against gpl - in fatc qt's gpl
license drives a lot of companies to gtk (lgpl) and thus increas
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:33:13 -0400 Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> Ah yes, the licensing issue. Is it something which has helped or
> hindered the "E" project? Who knows. There are several other factors besides
> that one which one could point to as well, it's possible those may
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:44:23 +0200 "Cedric BAIL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What are the reasons people prefer one type of license over another..
> > and does that affect the number or quality of contributors or
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:20:07 -0400 Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> I'm not sure that the 'majority of the work' was done by people who
> *like* that license, not for every sub-project.. or even if partly so,
> whether that will continue to be the case -- or more to the point, w
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:45:47 +0200 "Jorge Luis Zapata Muga"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> Hi all,
>
> I dont pretend to start a flamewar, if you do, please dont answer this
> thread.The thing is that right now, the EFL has arrived to a place
> where different companies are using this software, a
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Cedric BAIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Smarter or not.. again, who really knows. Companies make their choices,
>> individuals make theirs.. each based on whatever set of reasons. Some
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cedric wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> What are the reasons people prefer one type of license over another..
>>> and does that affect the number or quality of con
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:10:49 -0500 "Nathan Ingersoll"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, I wasn't going to feed the trolls, but since you called me
> >> out...
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure just what "feed the tro
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Well, I wasn't going to feed the trolls, but since you called me out...
>>
>
> I'm not sure just what "feed the trolls" means, but if it's another
> way to call people names in order to silence or undermine a differe
Michael wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 19:32:21 (-0400),
> Jose Gonzalez wrote:
>
>
>> In any case Nathan, as I've stated before, if you feel comfortable
>> with such licenses, then good for you. I just don't share that view.
>>
>
> We get it. You've said it half a dozen times a
On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 19:32:21 (-0400),
Jose Gonzalez wrote:
> In any case Nathan, as I've stated before, if you feel comfortable
> with such licenses, then good for you. I just don't share that view.
We get it. You've said it half a dozen times already...and virtually
nothing else.
This
Nathan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This issue is a long and complex one, and I really have no desire to
>> get into the specifics of it. You and Nathan and Carsten and maybe many
>> others,
>> may feel comfortable with your d
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This issue is a long and complex one, and I really have no desire to
> get into the specifics of it. You and Nathan and Carsten and maybe many
> others,
> may feel comfortable with your decisions and choices, and t
Michael wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 13:30:42 (-0400),
> Jose Gonzalez wrote:
>
>
>> This issue is a long and complex one, and I really have no desire to
>> get into the specifics of it.
>>
>
> Then stop replying! :P
>
You asked.
Michael wrote:
>
>> Often, I saw some people react with hostility to any attempt to even
>> bring up the issue, and basically deliver a wide-ranging ultimatum
>> that no code was ever going to be accepted into E's cvs unless it
>> was under a BSD/MIT license -- consider Michael Jenning's recent
On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 13:30:42 (-0400),
Jose Gonzalez wrote:
> This issue is a long and complex one, and I really have no desire to
> get into the specifics of it.
Then stop replying! :P
> You and Nathan and Carsten and maybe many others, may feel
> comfortable with your decisions and cho
Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 13:20:07 (-0400),
> Jose Gonzalez wrote:
>
>
>> I'm not sure that the 'majority of the work' was done by people who
>> *like* that license, not for every sub-project.. or even if partly
>> so, whether that will continue to be the case -- or
On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 13:20:07 (-0400),
Jose Gonzalez wrote:
> I'm not sure that the 'majority of the work' was done by people who
> *like* that license, not for every sub-project.. or even if partly
> so, whether that will continue to be the case -- or more to the
> point, whether any real
Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 08:33:13 (-0400),
> Jose Gonzalez wrote:
>
>
>> Personally, I'd *never* contribute anything that I'd consider to be
>> a truly serious, dedicated, body of time and work to a project that
>> wan't LGPL or GPL. But that's just me.
>>
>
>
Gustavo wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I dont pretend to start a flamewar, if you do, please dont answer this
>> thread.The thing is that right now, the EFL has arrived to a place
>> where different companies a
On Tuesday, 22 July 2008, at 08:33:13 (-0400),
Jose Gonzalez wrote:
> Personally, I'd *never* contribute anything that I'd consider to be
> a truly serious, dedicated, body of time and work to a project that
> wan't LGPL or GPL. But that's just me.
Fortunately most are more open-minded than that
Jorge wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I dont pretend to start a flamewar, if you do, please dont answer this
> thread.The thing is that right now, the EFL has arrived to a place
> where different companies are using this software, and several of us
> are working on a company using the efl (raster, gustavo
Cedric wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What are the reasons people prefer one type of license over another..
>> and
>> does that affect the number or quality of contributors or contributions?
>> Again,
>> who knows. I don't like
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are the reasons people prefer one type of license over another.. and
> does that affect the number or quality of contributors or contributions?
> Again,
> who knows. I don't like licenses in the software world -
Ah yes, the licensing issue. Is it something which has helped or hindered
the "E" project? Who knows. There are several other factors besides that one
which
one could point to as well, it's possible those may even be intertwined with
this
one... Again, who really knows for certain.
O
On Monday, 21 July 2008, at 13:45:47 (+0200),
Jorge Luis Zapata Muga wrote:
> From a closed source company POV, BSD license is great because they
> dont need to give us anything back (fancypants example?); but for
> companies that do want to build an opensource initiative based on
> the EFL, BSD i
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:45:47 +0200
"Jorge Luis Zapata Muga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I dont pretend to start a flamewar, if you do, please dont answer this
> thread.The thing is that right now, the EFL has arrived to a place
> where different companies are using this software, and
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> ProFUSION will release its code under LGPL (guarana and possible
>> others to come). And yes, we think just like you, but the
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ProFUSION will release its code under LGPL (guarana and possible
> others to come). And yes, we think just like you, but the code is
> there and the majority of work was done by people that like it, so we
> do
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I dont pretend to start a flamewar, if you do, please dont answer this
> thread.The thing is that right now, the EFL has arrived to a place
> where different companies are using this software, and sever
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 6:45 AM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I dont pretend to start a flamewar, if you do, please dont answer this
> thread.The thing is that right now, the EFL has arrived to a place
> where different companies are using this software, and sever
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I dont pretend to start a flamewar, if you do, please dont answer this
> thread.The thing is that right now, the EFL has arrived to a place
> where different companies are using this software, and sev
Hi all,
I dont pretend to start a flamewar, if you do, please dont answer this
thread.The thing is that right now, the EFL has arrived to a place
where different companies are using this software, and several of us
are working on a company using the efl (raster, gustavo, cedric, me,
anyone else?).
72 matches
Mail list logo
