From: Emmanuel Marty <core@ggi-project.org>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:32:37 +0200

License settlement once for all. [Re: See you later alligator.]

WHS wrote:

> Hartmut Niemann wrote:
> 
> > <personal attacks>
> > Dear Wouter! If we can't agree on a license at all, the BSD crowd
> > won't get ANYTHING. If we agree on something *GPLed, they *can*, if they
> > want, use it. BTW: Is there an indication that they are
> > all as stubborn as you?
> 
> Hartmut, I'm not actually stubborn in the manner you and probably others
> think. I always disliked the simplistic and incorrect view that many
> Linux'ers (and I'm a Linux user, don't forget this) have of other
> licenses than *GPL. So, I enter these discussions exactly BECAUSE Andy
> wanted GGI on BSD.

Ok, ok, ok, everyone, please stop.

Wouter, please, you are an excellent programmer and we need your
help. I want to see ggi on *BSD too, and your experience with it is
necessary. Please ?

We know you aren't advocating BSD just for the heck of starting an
heated discussion. And your point of view is appreciated. Licensing
is really an hot topic, I guess.

Ok, I'll make a proposition. This is what Andy and I proposed
several months ago, but apparently it never made it through.

Okay, here goes:

1) Linux KGI/kgicon is GPL

2) BSD KGI equivalent is BSD

3) KGI drivers are multi-licensed :
   GPL for linux
   BSD for *BSD
   ..
   others will follow.

4) libggi is (stays) LGPL.

Please everyone who contributed code, say yes, or no, and explain
why, but say something, so that it is settled once for all, and
we can at least start developing KGI for *BSD. Okay ? Thanks.

Wouter, if just the userspace part (libggi) is LGPL, and driver
code/eventually KGI target, is BSD license compliant, do you
think it's really a problem? Without going into things like
"they use gcc" or "they don't use automake".

Or at least, can we give it a try like that, and see how the
*BSD communauty reacts? If their reaction is negative towards the
license, that's easier to fix, than having no library to offer
them at all like right now ?

> But it seems noone else is interested anymore in getting GGI everywhere,

I am. Really.

> You can consider all patches I sent to the list and/or to Andy as public
> domain, and decide on the license. I'm not going to the IRC meeting. I'm
> quitting programming for a while.

Wouter, we do listen to your opinion; It would be silly to give up just
because of an heated discussion. *shrug* for all I know, it's partly my
fault for letting the issue disgress to, my apologies for that.

OK - *everyone who contributed code* give your opinion about the parts
relevant to your code *only*. That should gather only "yes" votes. Then
we'll change the license information in the sources accordingly, and make
sure they are valid (ie. including what needs to be, etc. as pointed out
by someone).

I personally don't care what license my code is under, as long as it isn't
used for mass murdering or something :) We all code for the pleasure of
it, don't we. There is enough with work, lovelife and such, to worry about,
for having to bite eachother's nose about something like that. Don't you
think ?

> Andy, if you want GGI on BSD, you have to speak up for it.

I'm not Andy, but I do want GGI on BSD. And I want you to work on it.

--
Emmanuel