Re: GLib plans for the next cycle


On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Allin Cottrell <cottrell wfu edu> wrote:
> Havoc may well be right with regard to libdbus, but IMO the burden
> of proof rests the other way; that is, if code that is not under
> *GPL is to be made part of glib, the onus is on those who would
> make the addition to show without a particle of doubt that the
> license is not an issue (i.e., "afaict" is not good enough).

I don't think "afaict" is a good summary of the detailed analysis of
the problem I also posted. "afaict" was just allowing for the fact
that someone could show up and have some counterargument, in an
"anything is possible" kind of sense.

Let's not have this "well just the fact that a question was raised is
a problem" claim. There's a problem if there's an actual problem.
Logic can be applied to the situation, the licenses can be read,
probabilities analyzed, and it's quite possible to reach a rational

I think my arguments are compelling. If someone else thinks
differently, they can say so, and explain their reasoning.

And let's not mix this licensing stuff in with technical arguments.
Some people are concerned about glib dependencies, others would rather
use a different dbus implementation than libdbus for technical
reasons, etc.; those are all fine discussions, but not related.

The bottom line is that dbus has an MIT/X11-equivalent license, with
the addition of a *weaker* patent clause than LGPL/GPL already have.
The license was written by a lawyer and is perfectly sane.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]