Calling all open source developers

[Björnke von Gierke]

On 20 Oct 2009, at 23:34, Richard Gaskin wrote:

> Are there any ways to ensure that a common pool doesn't get  
> fragmented like that?

no.

its _intended_ to be fragmented. And then it's the market's  
(community's) job to favour that one (or more) solution which is best.  
Up to now, it works out long term. However, it sucks to have dozens of  
non-functional x-window environments (that was back in '98 or so).  
With functional i mean "usable by installing it and then not needing  
to fiddle in the terminal for hours".

> Also: Would a Rev stack need to use LGPL to maintain a clear  
> distinction from the engine, or is GPL sufficiently clear on that?

As most legal questions, the answer to that depends on whom you ask ;)

What can and what can't be gpl-ed has not yet been fought about in any  
court of the world (as far as i know). Lots of companies trying to  
"steal" cearly gpl protected stuff, but never a decision on what gpl  
is and what isn't.

I say that there is a clear distinction between a stack and the  
engine, therefore it's ok to use gpl. Another person might say that it  
is one binary (when made as a standalone), so it can't be gpl- 
compatible.

I like ambiguous situations like these. But actually in Swiss rights,  
a contract is binding as long as both parties believe it to be legal,  
only when one knows it's illegal, then they'll need to change it to  
make sure it's legal from that point on. So maybe i just like the  
thought of a contract being legal as long as everyone involved knows  
nothing. :D


have fun
björnke

-- 

official ChatRev page:
http://bjoernke.com?target=chatrev

Chat with other RunRev developers:
go stack URL "http://bjoernke.com/chatrev/chatrev1.3b3.rev"