From: Jorge L. Z. M. <jor...@gm...> - 2008-07-21 11:45:50
|
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?). >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 is not so great, because their code can be stolen from others; so whats your opinion on this? how to achieve an open source compromise and still be able to use EFL and develop for it?. In my opinion building a company around BSD license is not an option for the market, but GPL'ing libraries is not good as it leaves all the BSD ppl away, maybe LGPL? Thanks |
From: S. A. <se...@gm...> - 2008-07-21 14:47:54
|
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga < jor...@gm...> 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, me, > anyone else?). > > >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 is not so great, because their code can be stolen from > others; AFAIK, folks developing using EFL can release their apps under another license. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that BSDL doesn't force you to use BSDL for your own code using BSDLd stuff. > so whats your opinion on this? how to achieve an open source > compromise and still be able to use EFL and develop for it?. In my > opinion building a company around BSD license is not an option for the > market, but GPL'ing libraries is not good as it leaves all the BSD ppl > away, maybe LGPL? And from this POV, what would be the difference between BSDL and LGPL? > Thanks > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > -- Minden jót, Sevcsik András |
From: Nathan I. <nin...@gm...> - 2008-07-21 15:42:03
|
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 6:45 AM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga <jor...@gm...> 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, me, > anyone else?). This is not really anything new. E has been used commercially since raster worked for RedHat (1997 or 98?). > >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 is not so great, because their code can be stolen from > others; so whats your opinion on this? It's not stolen if you are giving them the license to use it in this manner. Plenty of companies license code using this type of license. The motivation of contributing back is really the same as with any other open source software. The cost of maintaining a forked version increases over time as the mainline code base diverges from the fork point. By contributing their changes back the company gets the benefit of their changes being maintained by the community, not just their paid developers. > how to achieve an open source > compromise and still be able to use EFL and develop for it?. In my > opinion building a company around BSD license is not an option for the > market, but GPL'ing libraries is not good as it leaves all the BSD ppl > away, maybe LGPL? If a company really insists on using a reciprocal license like *GPL they can relicense a fork and distribute their changes in that fork with the license of their choosing. It's just going to be increasingly painful to integrate upstream changes as mentioned previously. Nathan |
From: Gustavo S. B. <bar...@pr...> - 2008-07-21 17:52:36
|
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Jorge Luis Zapata Muga <jor...@gm...> 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, me, > anyone else?). > > >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 is not so great, because their code can be stolen from > others; so whats your opinion on this? how to achieve an open source > compromise and still be able to use EFL and develop for it?. In my > opinion building a company around BSD license is not an option for the > market, but GPL'ing libraries is not good as it leaves all the BSD ppl > away, maybe LGPL? 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 don't care that much, since even if we start to do lots of work, it is still little compared to the whole codebase... -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri http://profusion.mobi embedded systems -------------------------------------- MSN: bar...@gm... Skype: gsbarbieri Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202 |
From: Nathan I. <nin...@gm...> - 2008-07-21 18:23:46
|
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri <bar...@pr...> 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 > don't care that much, since even if we start to do lots of work, it is > still little compared to the whole codebase... Are you referring to code your company is originating or changes to E code? |
From: Gustavo S. B. <bar...@pr...> - 2008-07-21 18:36:32
|
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <nin...@gm...> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri > <bar...@pr...> 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 >> don't care that much, since even if we start to do lots of work, it is >> still little compared to the whole codebase... > > Are you referring to code your company is originating or changes to E code? New code my company created. All code we commit to E CVS is in the original project license, be it BSD, MIT, GPL, ... whatever the main author decided. As I said I think that we must respect initial author decision and use his license. I'd just change that if I know I'd become the new maintainer, changing most of the code in a radical way and getting community around it, which I doubt will happen from our part to any of existing E component :-) -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri http://profusion.mobi embedded systems -------------------------------------- MSN: bar...@gm... Skype: gsbarbieri Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202 |
From: Brett N. <na...@na...> - 2008-07-21 23:51:13
|
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:45:47 +0200 "Jorge Luis Zapata Muga" <jor...@gm...> 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, me, > anyone else?). Me? > >From a closed source company POV, BSD license is great because they > dont need to give us anything back (fancypants example?); I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that FST (ie FancyPants) doesn't give anything to the community. I personally have contributed[1] (on company time, with company approval) in the past 12 months, bug reports, bug fixes, compilation fixes, a rendering engine and given a talk on e17 related technologies at LCA. There are other contributions, not all code, and not all is on the public record for a variety of reasons - especially the fact I know I can save time by emailing people patches and other comments directly. I can think of another individual who did a lot of work on evas, ecore & edje in 2003 on FSTs time (with full company backing). FST doesn't make a large song and dance about these contributions - maybe we should if people think we are just taking a free ride? However I personally think doing it without making a fuss is much healthier for the community in the long term (this goes for the other companies who contribute to e17 as well). On the flip side it's not a secret that we use e17 technologies in our products, _all_ our customers (for those products) are aware of this, and not just something buried in a README.txt either. > companies that do want to build an opensource initiative based on the > EFL, BSD is not so great, because their code can be stolen from > others; so whats your opinion on this? Well to be frank, even if we never gave a single line of code back (which as I just said, we have), it still wouldn't be stealing. FST (and I personally) take our licencing obligations very seriously. We do follow the licence requirements for the parts of e17 we use, the original author is well aware of the fact we use the software, and how we use it. In fact it was his original suggestion (and he had to convince quite a few people here) that FST use the technology. Regards, nash [aka na...@fs...] [1] I don't want to turn this into a contest on number of lines or any such garbage. |
From: Michael J. <e-...@ka...> - 2008-07-22 00:11:45
|
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 is not so great, because their code can be stolen from > others; so whats your opinion on this? how to achieve an open source > compromise and still be able to use EFL and develop for it?. How E and its libraries are licensed has nothing to do with the companies developing code around it. Contributions which become part of E or the EFL must be BSD licensed, but any given company's EFL-based products or "value add" need not be. That's the beauty of the BSD license. Besides, if your company's product doesn't provide substantial value-add above and beyond the EFL itself, you really don't have a product to begin with. :-) Unfortunately, the LGPL isn't really any less viral than the GPL. The only real difference is that it explicitly allows linking non-*GPL software with LGPL libraries/objects. (The fact that it's a *different* virus, and thus subjects its victims to much the same GPL exclusion as non-*GPL software, is a source of great personal amusement but little actual problem resolution.) If you're looking for a license which would allow free community use of your product without the risk of having your work stolen by another for-profit company, you may want to investigate the Artistic License or Creative Commons. But that may be more of a lawyer issue than a developer issue. IANAL, ATINLA. Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <me...@ka...> Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Normal is in the eye of the beholder." -- Whoopi Goldberg |
From: Jose G. <jos...@ju...> - 2008-07-22 12:33:46
|
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. One could try and compare the 'success' of similar LGPL vs. MIT/BSD licensed projects... perhaps the Linux Kernel vs. other MIT/BSD-licensed kernels? Perhaps in the gfx world, things like X say? Ummm, no real LGPL equivalent to X, so we might only consider whether X has received as much help/resources as similarly important projects -- I'd say it falls pretty short there. Perhaps compare the success of GPL/LGPL vs. MIT/BSD licensed gui toolkits/frameworks? Ummm, I guess Mono and E's, would fall in the latter camp, but most others in the former. 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 - I think it's abhorrent. But unfortunately, their existance and that of patents is very real so both corps and individuals have to make a decision. 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. ____________________________________________________________ Free information on the best Web Hosting. Click Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nBPXZ6KJxUTKFSb5y4g2Obg6FGZwZ05U4Fu9zO7DVkFPyHm/ |
From: Cedric B. <ced...@fr...> - 2008-07-22 12:44:25
|
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Jose Gonzalez <jos...@ju...> 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 - I think it's abhorrent. > But unfortunately, their existance and that of patents is very real so both corps > and individuals have to make a decision. > 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. I can share my experience too on this subject. In my previous company, it was a problem to contribute code back to a BSD licenced software (and GPL too). The lawyer and all the intellectual property guys would forbid us to give back code under this licence. In fact, only LGPL would have been a solution. That was the reason, why they choose GTK instead of anything else and without any technical consideration. To fix this problem, I changed for a smarter company. But that's just me :-) -- Cedric BAIL |
From: Jose G. <jos...@ju...> - 2008-07-22 14:20:12
|
Cedric wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Jose Gonzalez <jos...@ju...> 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 - I think it's abhorrent. >> But unfortunately, their existance and that of patents is very real so both corps >> and individuals have to make a decision. >> 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. >> > > I can share my experience too on this subject. In my previous company, > it was a problem to contribute code back to a BSD licenced software > (and GPL too). The lawyer and all the intellectual property guys would > forbid us to give back code under this licence. In fact, only LGPL > would have been a solution. That was the reason, why they choose GTK > instead of anything else and without any technical consideration. > To fix this problem, I changed for a smarter company. But that's just me :-) > Smarter or not.. again, who really knows. Companies make their choices, individuals make theirs.. each based on whatever set of reasons. Sometimes those reasons are the same or similar, sometimes they're not. For me, it's just a personal decision. ____________________________________________________________ Need cash? Click to get a cash advance. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mKetHBkmiInO4NDv7k053HJS251WDk6OhyGUb2ms6laYWp5/ |
From: Cedric B. <ced...@fr...> - 2008-07-24 11:57:13
|
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Jose Gonzalez <jos...@ju...> wrote: > Cedric wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Jose Gonzalez <jos...@ju...> 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 - I think it's >>> abhorrent. >>> But unfortunately, their existance and that of patents is very real so >>> both corps and individuals have to make a decision. >>> 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. >> >> I can share my experience too on this subject. In my previous company, >> it was a problem to contribute code back to a BSD licenced software >> (and GPL too). The lawyer and all the intellectual property guys would >> forbid us to give back code under this licence. In fact, only LGPL >> would have been a solution. That was the reason, why they choose GTK >> instead of anything else and without any technical consideration. >> To fix this problem, I changed for a smarter company. But that's just me >> :-) > > Smarter or not.. again, who really knows. Companies make their choices, > individuals make theirs.. each based on whatever set of reasons. Sometimes > those reasons are the same or similar, sometimes they're not. For me, it's just a > personal decision. That's true. I should have stated that using the EFL is only a technical decision. But this is not something common. And despite what others could think, I think you are raising a very good point. The way we handle this licence issue define how we handle our current community and how we will grow. We should compare on this aspect with other toolkit community. Both GTK and QT are around more or less as long as the E project exist. We are all around since a decade now. So looking at GTK. Their core component are LGPL based. Many company and individual are involing in this project, much more than in the E project. For the company, I know for sure that many choose GTK because of it's licence (all the big company that are ruled by intellectual property rather than technical staff will choose LGPL, that's really a fact). For individual, I think their is more people willing to contribute to a project if they know that others will be forced to help. But that's just an opinion, a feeling. Looking at QT. Their core component are GPL+proprietary licence. One company, trolltech, is acting like a proxy for others company and individuals. Contributing to the core is done mainly by Trolltech from what I know (tell me if I am wrong), but as a community of developper around this core, people benefit from the GPL effect and the growing contribution to any of it's part. Both GTK and QT have now a good marketing force with a strong community and part of this is due to this licence. Sure we could find others reasons for this difference, but let's look at our community. Our core component are BSD based licence. We are less than five people working now on the core (I include eet,evas,ecore,embryo and edje in this core). A few company are using the EFL, their code is most of the time proprietary, in some case they open it under LGPL and in a fewer case they contribute to this core library. Much more individuals are working with this core library and provide apps and library under the licence they feel including BSD, LGPL and GPL. So we are definitively not a community working on the EFL, but a community working with the EFL. We are not using them only to build E17 and our CVS is more a community repository where many apps end. And we should encourage the growth of this community. For this we should let our users choose the licence they want and continue to make our decision based on technical value. We never dictated the licence of our users, that's how I understand the choice of our licence for the core EFL. And I think we should continue to push this behaviour forward, by letting any new open source code go inside our CVS. That's how our community has grown in the past. But now that we have a decade of history, it's also a good time to think about what we want and expect for the core EFL. I want this community to continue to grow. I want more apps using the EFL. I want the core EFL to be improved, get faster, better and I really would like more contribution to the core. That's how I feel about this project. And I think that Jorge and Jose mail where all about that. And how we should act to improve the situation. I believe that puting the core EFL under a LGPL licence will help having more company backing us and more people contributing to the core. Eet, Embryo and Edje could be LGPL could be moved to LGPL without any problem for any of our users. Evas and Ecore could be LGPL also, as the engine are dynamically loaded and they are independent. Perhaps we could explicitely state that engine could stay proprietary as this could impact some of our users. But at the end I think, we have a lot to win by switching the licence of the core to LGPL and nothing to loose. This decision should have nothing to do with our religion about freedom, but what we expect from this community and how we want it to grow. It's not time for a flamewar, it's time to think and come with a plan for the growth of this community. I know they are more subjects than the licence, but this is the first and the one than will most likely impact our community growth and the strength of it's core. This decision will impact our users, that's true whatever it is. But this will not change the way people use it. Just the power we give to people using it. And if people have other idea to increase the strength of contribution to the core, it's time to raise you voice. -- Cedric BAIL |
From: Gustavo S. B. <bar...@pr...> - 2008-07-24 14:50:55
|
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Cedric BAIL <ced...@fr...> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Jose Gonzalez <jos...@ju...> wrote: >> Smarter or not.. again, who really knows. Companies make their choices, >> individuals make theirs.. each based on whatever set of reasons. Sometimes >> those reasons are the same or similar, sometimes they're not. For me, it's just a >> personal decision. > > That's true. I should have stated that using the EFL is only a > technical decision. But this is not something common. > > And despite what others could think, I think you are raising a very > good point. The way we handle this licence issue define how we handle > our current community and how we will grow. > > We should compare on this aspect with other toolkit community. Both > GTK and QT are around more or less as long as the E project exist. We > are all around since a decade now. > > So looking at GTK. Their core component are LGPL based. Many company > and individual are involing in this project, much more than in the E > project. For the company, I know for sure that many choose GTK because > of it's licence (all the big company that are ruled by intellectual > property rather than technical staff will choose LGPL, that's really a > fact). For individual, I think their is more people willing to > contribute to a project if they know that others will be forced to > help. But that's just an opinion, a feeling. > > Looking at QT. Their core component are GPL+proprietary licence. One > company, trolltech, is acting like a proxy for others company and > individuals. Contributing to the core is done mainly by Trolltech from > what I know (tell me if I am wrong), but as a community of developper > around this core, people benefit from the GPL effect and the growing > contribution to any of it's part. > > Both GTK and QT have now a good marketing force with a strong > community and part of this is due to this licence. Sure we could find > others reasons for this difference, but let's look at our community. > > Our core component are BSD based licence. We are less than five people > working now on the core (I include eet,evas,ecore,embryo and edje in > this core). A few company are using the EFL, their code is most of the > time proprietary, in some case they open it under LGPL and in a fewer > case they contribute to this core library. Much more individuals are > working with this core library and provide apps and library under the > licence they feel including BSD, LGPL and GPL. > > So we are definitively not a community working on the EFL, but a > community working with the EFL. We are not using them only to build > E17 and our CVS is more a community repository where many apps end. > And we should encourage the growth of this community. For this we > should let our users choose the licence they want and continue to make > our decision based on technical value. We never dictated the licence > of our users, that's how I understand the choice of our licence for > the core EFL. And I think we should continue to push this behaviour > forward, by letting any new open source code go inside our CVS. That's > how our community has grown in the past. > > But now that we have a decade of history, it's also a good time to > think about what we want and expect for the core EFL. I want this > community to continue to grow. I want more apps using the EFL. I want > the core EFL to be improved, get faster, better and I really would > like more contribution to the core. That's how I feel about this > project. And I think that Jorge and Jose mail where all about that. > And how we should act to improve the situation. > > I believe that puting the core EFL under a LGPL licence will help > having more company backing us and more people contributing to the > core. Eet, Embryo and Edje could be LGPL could be moved to LGPL > without any problem for any of our users. Evas and Ecore could be LGPL > also, as the engine are dynamically loaded and they are independent. > Perhaps we could explicitely state that engine could stay proprietary > as this could impact some of our users. But at the end I think, we > have a lot to win by switching the licence of the core to LGPL and > nothing to loose. > > This decision should have nothing to do with our religion about > freedom, but what we expect from this community and how we want it to > grow. It's not time for a flamewar, it's time to think and come with a > plan for the growth of this community. I know they are more subjects > than the licence, but this is the first and the one than will most > likely impact our community growth and the strength of it's core. This > decision will impact our users, that's true whatever it is. But this > will not change the way people use it. Just the power we give to > people using it. And if people have other idea to increase the > strength of contribution to the core, it's time to raise you voice. I must say I agree with you, I do think the license is something that matters and LGPL is better for something as EFL. I also agree that "we decided this 10 years ago and we'll not rethink" is a bad thing, damn, some of the guys that did this decision 10 years ago don't even write code nowadays, they don't work or want to work with current code base and if the project goes like that, it's a dead end for sure. 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? -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri http://profusion.mobi embedded systems -------------------------------------- MSN: bar...@gm... Skype: gsbarbieri Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202 |
From: Peter W. <pet...@we...> - 2008-07-24 21:26:50
|
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 not an author of one of the core libs, but since you are asking me, here is what i think about it. I personally don't like the LGPL, because IMHO it doesn't really work for applications. It sounds somewhat odd if you read the license for an application and they only talk about libraries. And I strongly believe that one should use the same license for applications and libraries. It happens often that you move some code from a lib to an app and vice versa, or you turn a whole app into a library. So maybe something like MPL would be better, but afaik you get with the MPL troubles with the debian folks. Don't know how it is with the CPL. I still prefer the 3-clause BSD license, I code, because it is fun. If some makes money with my code, it doesn't change the fact that i had fun while writing it and he also doesn't steal my code. I still have my code! Besides that believing that a company contributes to your LGPLed library/application because it uses/modifies your code is wrong. Take a look on the khtml history and you'll see that using the lgpl doesn't implicate or ensure that you'll receive useful patches. At the end, this decision is not up to me. Peter |
From: dan s. <dj...@wi...> - 2008-07-25 04:49:29
|
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 you think >> about relicensing the code under LGPL? >> >> > > I'm not an author of one of the core libs, but since you are asking > me, > here is what i think about it. > > I personally don't like the LGPL, because IMHO it doesn't really work > for applications. It sounds somewhat odd if you read the license for > an > application and they only talk about libraries. And I strongly believe > that one should use the same license for applications and libraries. > It > happens often that you move some code from a lib to an app and vice > versa, or you turn a whole app into a library. So maybe something like > MPL would be better, but afaik you get with the MPL troubles with the > debian folks. Don't know how it is with the CPL. > > I still prefer the 3-clause BSD license, I code, because it is fun. If > some makes money with my code, it doesn't change the fact that i had > fun > while writing it and he also doesn't steal my code. I still have my > code! > > Besides that believing that a company contributes to your LGPLed > library/application because it uses/modifies your code is wrong. > Take a > look on the khtml history and you'll see that using the lgpl doesn't > implicate or ensure that you'll receive useful patches. > > At the end, this decision is not up to me. Couldn't have said it better myself. (Oh, and Peter, you are listed as a main author of Ewl (for almost a year and a half, heh)) dan |
From: Michael J. <e-...@ka...> - 2008-07-24 21:40:24
|
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 things? What does the LGPL buy us that the BSD license denies us? So far the only "concrete" thing mentioned were Jose's missing contributions. :-) > I also agree that "we decided this 10 years ago and we'll not > rethink" is a bad thing, I apologize if you inferred that from something I wrote, but I never said that, nor do I think that. It's hard to remember these days whether certain decisions were made via e-mail or in person. There aren't too many people still around who remember when (and why) these decisions were made, or even that they were made to begin with. If they were made in person between raster, mandrake, and myself (and possibly horms), the list is even shorter. :) Allowing raster to focus on code instead of administrivia is in the best interest of the project as a whole, so I've always tried to shoulder as much of that load as possible. Over the years we've had a few occasions to rethink and rediscuss licensing, but the decisions (and the reasons for them) really haven't changed before. If they do now, then they do, but it doesn't hurt anyone to understand or be reminded of the original thinking on the subject. > damn, some of the guys that did this decision 10 years ago don't > even write code nowadays, I'm not sure if pointed statements like this one fall into the "flamewar" category Jorge originally mentioned, but that's okay. :) How much or how little the original decision makers contribute to E currently doesn't really change the reasoning behind the decision or its historic significance. It also doesn't change the fact that making project-level decisions ultimately falls to raster today just as it did back then. > 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? Relicensing requires buy-in (unanimous buy-in, in fact) from ALL contributors, not just currently-active ones. Licensing for new code is a much simpler matter. Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <me...@ka...> Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "I'm one of those mayors whose management style is to allow free and unlimited debate up to a point." -- Marion Barry |
From: Carsten H. (T. R. <ra...@ra...> - 2008-07-24 15:19:24
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:57:10 +0200 "Cedric BAIL" <ced...@fr...> 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 increases suppot for it. efl's success based on license i think is a specious argument - but if everyone wants to move to LGPL - i have nothing against it... the PROBLEM is that every author must agree - in writing (email will do). that means every author must be contacted and reply. for every lib (or app) that changes license. i can say now... that this likely will waste a lot of time... and all contributions until license are changed need to be on hold as contributions do not know what license it will come under. ... i don't like the "bureaucracy" of this... if i could press a button and just have a popdown box of license and it would just change - it'd be a moot point, but it isn't. > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Jose Gonzalez <jos...@ju...> wrote: > > Cedric wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Jose Gonzalez <jos...@ju...> 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 - I think it's abhorrent. > >>> But unfortunately, their existance and that of patents is very real so > >>> both corps and individuals have to make a decision. > >>> 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. > >> > >> I can share my experience too on this subject. In my previous company, > >> it was a problem to contribute code back to a BSD licenced software > >> (and GPL too). The lawyer and all the intellectual property guys would > >> forbid us to give back code under this licence. In fact, only LGPL > >> would have been a solution. That was the reason, why they choose GTK > >> instead of anything else and without any technical consideration. > >> To fix this problem, I changed for a smarter company. But that's just me > >> :-) > > > > Smarter or not.. again, who really knows. Companies make their choices, > > individuals make theirs.. each based on whatever set of reasons. Sometimes > > those reasons are the same or similar, sometimes they're not. For me, it's > > just a personal decision. > > That's true. I should have stated that using the EFL is only a > technical decision. But this is not something common. > > And despite what others could think, I think you are raising a very > good point. The way we handle this licence issue define how we handle > our current community and how we will grow. > > We should compare on this aspect with other toolkit community. Both > GTK and QT are around more or less as long as the E project exist. We > are all around since a decade now. > > So looking at GTK. Their core component are LGPL based. Many company > and individual are involing in this project, much more than in the E > project. For the company, I know for sure that many choose GTK because > of it's licence (all the big company that are ruled by intellectual > property rather than technical staff will choose LGPL, that's really a > fact). For individual, I think their is more people willing to > contribute to a project if they know that others will be forced to > help. But that's just an opinion, a feeling. > > Looking at QT. Their core component are GPL+proprietary licence. One > company, trolltech, is acting like a proxy for others company and > individuals. Contributing to the core is done mainly by Trolltech from > what I know (tell me if I am wrong), but as a community of developper > around this core, people benefit from the GPL effect and the growing > contribution to any of it's part. > > Both GTK and QT have now a good marketing force with a strong > community and part of this is due to this licence. Sure we could find > others reasons for this difference, but let's look at our community. > > Our core component are BSD based licence. We are less than five people > working now on the core (I include eet,evas,ecore,embryo and edje in > this core). A few company are using the EFL, their code is most of the > time proprietary, in some case they open it under LGPL and in a fewer > case they contribute to this core library. Much more individuals are > working with this core library and provide apps and library under the > licence they feel including BSD, LGPL and GPL. > > So we are definitively not a community working on the EFL, but a > community working with the EFL. We are not using them only to build > E17 and our CVS is more a community repository where many apps end. > And we should encourage the growth of this community. For this we > should let our users choose the licence they want and continue to make > our decision based on technical value. We never dictated the licence > of our users, that's how I understand the choice of our licence for > the core EFL. And I think we should continue to push this behaviour > forward, by letting any new open source code go inside our CVS. That's > how our community has grown in the past. > > But now that we have a decade of history, it's also a good time to > think about what we want and expect for the core EFL. I want this > community to continue to grow. I want more apps using the EFL. I want > the core EFL to be improved, get faster, better and I really would > like more contribution to the core. That's how I feel about this > project. And I think that Jorge and Jose mail where all about that. > And how we should act to improve the situation. > > I believe that puting the core EFL under a LGPL licence will help > having more company backing us and more people contributing to the > core. Eet, Embryo and Edje could be LGPL could be moved to LGPL > without any problem for any of our users. Evas and Ecore could be LGPL > also, as the engine are dynamically loaded and they are independent. > Perhaps we could explicitely state that engine could stay proprietary > as this could impact some of our users. But at the end I think, we > have a lot to win by switching the licence of the core to LGPL and > nothing to loose. > > This decision should have nothing to do with our religion about > freedom, but what we expect from this community and how we want it to > grow. It's not time for a flamewar, it's time to think and come with a > plan for the growth of this community. I know they are more subjects > than the licence, but this is the first and the one than will most > likely impact our community growth and the strength of it's core. This > decision will impact our users, that's true whatever it is. But this > will not change the way people use it. Just the power we give to > people using it. And if people have other idea to increase the > strength of contribution to the core, it's time to raise you voice. > > -- > Cedric BAIL > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ra...@ra... |
From: Carsten H. (T. R. <ra...@ra...> - 2008-07-24 15:18:37
|
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:44:23 +0200 "Cedric BAIL" <ced...@fr...> babbled: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Jose Gonzalez <jos...@ju...> 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 - I think it's abhorrent. But unfortunately, their existance and that > > of patents is very real so both corps and individuals have to make a > > decision. 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. > > I can share my experience too on this subject. In my previous company, > it was a problem to contribute code back to a BSD licenced software > (and GPL too). The lawyer and all the intellectual property guys would > forbid us to give back code under this licence. In fact, only LGPL > would have been a solution. That was the reason, why they choose GTK > instead of anything else and without any technical consideration. > To fix this problem, I changed for a smarter company. But that's just me :-) yeah. they sound silly - if they had GPL and LGPL in the same category - fine, but they are being very inconsistent there. -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ra...@ra... |
From: Michael J. <e-...@ka...> - 2008-07-22 18:05:33
|
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 choices, and that's fine with me > :) I just happen not to share in this view and have made my own > decision. Other than to avail us of your keen grasp of the obvious ("Different people have different opinions." Got it. Thanks.), I really don't see the point in your going on and on about this. :P IRC is already filling up with people who want this discussion to go away. (I count at least 3 in the past 90 seconds.) So could we please just agree to disagree and stop polluting the list? I could be wrong, but I interpreted Jorge's original e-mail as asking, "What's the best way to build a business model around contributions to, and projects based on, BSD-licensed code?" and not, "How can we change the E license to be more business-friendly?" If I've misinterpreted the original question, hopefully he will be willing to clarify, but otherwise a discussion of BSD licensing in general and E's license in particular is not really going to help him. I hope somewhere in this mess, Jorge got his question answered, or at least got some ideas. Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <me...@ka...> Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "If the President knowingly lies to the American people, he should immediately resign." -- Bill Clinton in 1974 |
From: Jose G. <jos...@ju...> - 2008-07-22 18:36:27
|
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. ____________________________________________________________ Discount Online Trading - Click Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mJ8X5cyJOtHpleFS9QL4FmGNRNaCgIErE2dZ5b6P3yYrJeo/ |
From: Michael J. <e-...@ka...> - 2008-07-22 23:39:06
|
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 entire conversation has deviated way off-topic and needs to stop. If someone wants to address Jorge's original question, please do so. Otherwise, please help us get back on track by not continuing this irrelevant tangent. Thanks, Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <me...@ka...> Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Come stand a little bit closer. Breathe in and get a bit higher. You'll never know what hit you when I get to you." -- Savage Garden, "I Want You" |
From: Jose G. <jos...@ju...> - 2008-07-23 00:08:30
|
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 already...and virtually > nothing else. > > This entire conversation has deviated way off-topic and needs to > stop. If someone wants to address Jorge's original question, please > do so. Otherwise, please help us get back on track by not continuing > this irrelevant tangent. > > Thanks, > Michael > > And so have you, even more times, over the years.. and imposed your restrictions on committing to E's cvs as well. And that's part of the very issue here - how such licensing restrictions might be affecting the growth and development of "E". No irrelevant tangents here, just what you don't want to hear. Any attempt to state LGPL as an alternative is dismissed.. often with the same kind of arguments used by MS. What do I think is a better alternative - clearly, I would vote for LGPL. ____________________________________________________________ Internet Security Software - Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mEWsAXk9gjpSax334ZoMrN25Ci871jaIXwIKp0q9aLPQLGI/ |
From: Michael J. <e-...@ka...> - 2008-07-24 22:20:14
|
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 > companies : > > 1) either with stay with BSD, and only the companies that accept to work > with code licenced under BSD would eventually share code with us > > 2) either we switch to, for example LGPL, or other similar licence (I was > told that MPL is not that bad), and then companies that accept to share > code with LGPL AND BSD licenced code would eventually help us. The > difference can be great. > > So if we want to have more than 5 devs on the core efl, we should > seriously discuss about which licence to use. I dispute the belief that license is the key (or even one of the key) factors in the success of an open source software project. There are other reasons besides license as to why the previous example project comparisons came out the way they did (like continuous, ongoing financial backing), and I can provide examples of GPL/LGPL projects that have failed against their BSD-licensed counterparts (Berlin) and of successful BSD-licensed projects (Vorbis). The only way to scientifically assert that LGPL > BSD for project success is to have two identical codebases, one under each license, and see which one wins. That would, of course, be somewhat silly...but that's the only way to control your experimental variables. I can also point to reasons why E hasn't been used (or has been replaced) in certain commercial ventures, and I'm know at least a couple people on this list who could do the same. So far I don't know a single company or organization which has cited license as their reason for moving away from E. And without really looking too hard, I was able to easily find articles about actual, decent-sized public companies (not the least of which being Apple) who chose BSD-licensed software because it's MORE business-friendly: http://www.bsdatwork.com/2002/01/03/source_of_mac_os_x/ http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2001/04/is_bsd_taking_the_spotlight_aw.html The bottom line is that you'll find developers who refuse to code *GPL software just like you'll find those who refuse to code BSD/MIT/X software. And like it or not, their reasoning almost always has something to do with how they define "freedom" and whose freedoms they're trying to protect. Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <me...@ka...> Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a 'protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor,' and when was the last time you needed one?" -- Tom Cargill, "C++ Journal" |
From: Jose G. <jos...@ju...> - 2008-07-27 09:54:40
|
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. So, from what i've understood, wrt >> companies : >> >> 1) either with stay with BSD, and only the companies that accept to work >> with code licenced under BSD would eventually share code with us >> >> 2) either we switch to, for example LGPL, or other similar licence (I was >> told that MPL is not that bad), and then companies that accept to share >> code with LGPL AND BSD licenced code would eventually help us. The >> difference can be great. >> >> So if we want to have more than 5 devs on the core efl, we should >> seriously discuss about which licence to use. >> > > I dispute the belief that license is the key (or even one of the key) > factors in the success of an open source software project. There are > other reasons besides license as to why the previous example project > comparisons came out the way they did (like continuous, ongoing > financial backing), and I can provide examples of GPL/LGPL projects > that have failed against their BSD-licensed counterparts (Berlin) and > of successful BSD-licensed projects (Vorbis). > > The only way to scientifically assert that LGPL > BSD for project > success is to have two identical codebases, one under each license, > and see which one wins. That would, of course, be somewhat > silly...but that's the only way to control your experimental > variables. > > I can also point to reasons why E hasn't been used (or has been > replaced) in certain commercial ventures, and I'm know at least a > couple people on this list who could do the same. So far I don't know > a single company or organization which has cited license as their > reason for moving away from E. > > And without really looking too hard, I was able to easily find articles > about actual, decent-sized public companies (not the least of which > being Apple) who chose BSD-licensed software because it's MORE > business-friendly: > > http://www.bsdatwork.com/2002/01/03/source_of_mac_os_x/ > http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2001/04/is_bsd_taking_the_spotlight_aw.html > > The bottom line is that you'll find developers who refuse to code *GPL > software just like you'll find those who refuse to code BSD/MIT/X > software. And like it or not, their reasoning almost always has > something to do with how they define "freedom" and whose freedoms > they're trying to protect. > > Michael > > Let me tell you exactly what I think of all this, my view alone. The problems you encountered with E years ago you brought upon yourselves and have perpetuated ever since. While the rest of the foss world grew and grew, E solidified. While the rest of the foss world become more and more inclusive, E became more and more exclusive. While they addressed the concerns of developers and grew their base, E became more elitist and concentrated on making it easy to try and sell a product to a willing buyer. Your elitism, arrogance, and intolerance grew to the point that you felt you could dictate as you wished, and harass, bully, and silence any who would question the pre-decided views.. and that you have indeed done. The underlying concern in the foss community at large has always been "freedom", and for the overwhelming majority of its developers that has always revolved around something that can be summed up with the question that Peter inadvertently posed: "Would you share code with someone that doesn't share code with you?" The gpl/lgpl licenses address precisely that concern of the large majority of foss developers, to *their* satisfaction. The bsd license does nothing towards that, it's instead seen as facilitating potential abuse by large interests by not requiring that they 'give back', what you call being "business-friendly". Those projects which have 'embraced' gpl/lgpl, who do address the concerns of their developers to *their* satisfaction and want to grow that base, have grown and grown and produced such a *vast* array of work and dedicated developers that it's remarkable. For you to cite one or two 'counter-examples' especially ones backed by large, powerful companies, is a joke. 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 stood for and done. Now, having said all that, we can also turn this around, and claim that the 'real' powers here with interests are some others - perhaps something like the FSF which wrote the gpl/lgpl licenses, and that it's them that are abusing developers and taking away their freedom, perhaps even taking code and not giving it back. But you will never be able to decide that objectively either, and certainly not without speaking with large numbers of developers in foss projects covered by those licenses and taking their views as valid to them. But, of course, the licenses may indeed have nothing to with anything, it's all pure speculation on my part here, and we do lack an experimental method to aid us. jose. ____________________________________________________________ Stuck in a dead end job?? Click to start living your dreams by earning an online degree. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nNfaMD6fBMYmdqUCZHh0IxxluLyzyoawUWxzMNIW1xUNrQ0/ |
From: dan s. <dj...@wi...> - 2008-07-27 22:13:52
|
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 > stood for and done. I'd say the dysfunctinality of this community has more to do with the not-invented-here syndrome that has littered CVS with multiple implementations of the same libraries and programs. Nothing like constantly dividing the developer base to solidify a community. dan |