# Keeping EFL and Enlightenment stuff BSD licensed



## B0o-supermario (May 7, 2011)

Hello,
You all (or most of you) know that Enlightenment is going GPL'd 
It is being infected, to say in other words...

Please sign in the petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/ENLIGHTE/

Thank you.

P.S. If I'm wrong, Please excuse and correct me


----------



## fwaggle (May 7, 2011)

B0o-supermario said:
			
		

> You all (or most of you) know that Enlightenment is going GPL'd



Source on this?


----------



## B0o-supermario (May 7, 2011)

Source: everywhere, see at their website: 2 lgpl'd libs afaik, and _all_ apps are gpl afaik


----------



## adamk (May 7, 2011)

So what?  They can license their code any way they want.  Don't like it, don't use it 

Adam


----------



## kpedersen (May 7, 2011)

Plus you can always just use the older (BSD licensed) version.

Is there any specific reason why a GPL license is not wanted for your desktop environment?


----------



## fwaggle (May 8, 2011)

B0o-supermario said:
			
		

> Source: everywhere, see at their website: 2 lgpl'd libs afaik, and _all_ apps are gpl afaik



Huh? I've gone through about 12 pages on Enlightenment.org and can't find the text "gpl" anywhere, including the archives of the "news" section. The SourceForge page still lists "BSD" as the license, as does Wikipedia. What libs are LGPLed?

Again, it's not that big of a deal if the authors decide to GPL their code... but the top Google search results for "enlightenment gpl" is the Tucows download page, which isn't terribly convincing as they have a bunch of software packages with inaccurate licenses. The third result is this thread, so pardon my skepticism.


----------



## zester (Aug 28, 2011)

There are only two libraries that are not bsd.

Ecore  BSD
E_Dbus BSD
Edje   BSD
Eet    BSD
Eeze   BSD
Efreet BSD
Eina   LGPL
Eio    LGPL
Embryo BSD
Evas   BSD


----------



## UNIXgod (Aug 28, 2011)

Lots of these threads lately. Starting to get old.


----------



## zester (Aug 28, 2011)

It's a valid concern. Take for instance (Nvidia, Ati) binary blobs
If you wanted to make your own distribution and it relied on hardware accelerated
opengl. Nvidia and Amd have no problem with you shipping there binary gfx card drivers
in your distro. But if you have GPL components in your distro the Free Software foundation
can and will revoke your right to distribute your distro with those GPL components just because of the Nvidia/Ati binary blobs. Hence why no linux distro comes with those two drivers installed by default.

But this is a non-issue for LGPL


----------



## B0o-supermario (Aug 29, 2011)

*Lgpl*

I think LGPL is restrictive in many cases...


----------



## B0o-supermario (Aug 29, 2011)

BTW I think most applications in http://e17-stuff.org/ are GPL/Copyleft.


----------



## zester (Aug 29, 2011)

The LGPL library is only restrictive if you want to make changes to the LGPL licensed 
library that your using. there are no other restrictions than that unless we are talking about LGPL3 then thats a little differant.

This isn't an official Enlightenment site and those are not official Enlightenment applications. 
http://e17-stuff.org/

By the way I am an editor there and the rest of the 
KDE-Look.org
KDE-Apps.org
KDE-Files.org
Qt-Apps.org
Qt-Prop.org
MeeGo-Central.org
Maemo-Apps.org
...

Sites

http://e17-stuff.org/usermanager/search.php?username=comtux

And e17 official licenses is BSD
http://trac.enlightenment.org/e/browser/trunk/e/COPYING


----------



## NewGuy (Sep 3, 2011)

zester said:
			
		

> But if you have GPL components in your distro the Free Software foundation
> can and will revoke your right to distribute your distro with those GPL components just because of the Nvidia/Ati binary blobs. Hence why no linux distro comes with those two drivers installed by default.



This isn't even remotely accurate. There is nothing in the GPL which allows the FSF to block a project from shipping their distribution just because it contains proprietary pieces. Most Linux distributions do, in fact, ship with binary blobs and there isn't anything the FSF can, or will, do about it.


----------



## TheRaven (Dec 2, 2017)

Pretty much the reason why am directed right back to FluxBox.

Was interested in Enlightenment for a while, but noticed just last night that components were GPL licensed and started a lil web search after which Enlightenment is no longer a consideration at all. Going, for a while now, for a full BSD, MIT or similarly licensed system (including MPL 2.0 & Apache 2.0) and have no patience with Stallmonkey and his brand of hack everyone else's stuff and spew give back --who's he been giving back to?

GPL is garbage. Anti-GPL threads never get old!

Seen some interest & concern floating around the BSD communities about Apache 2.0 licensing --the license appears to be nothing more than a modular license allowing different products with varying license to co-exist in a distribution all without affecting the other (just an FYI). The newer versions of the MPL license acts similarly (regarding the Apache 2.0 license) thus seen as BSD friendly personally. With everything considered thus, really no reason for anyone going GPL this late into the game like Enlightenment --it's their call though and it's my call to say C-ya.

Time to share some time with Fluxbox & XDM IMO.


----------



## obsigna (Dec 2, 2017)

So, you bothered resurrecting a more than 6 years old rambling. Why didn't you bother to check the actual state of the license situation of Enlightenment, it is still BSD see https://www.enlightenment.org/about-enlightenment:


> ...
> *OPEN IS BEST*
> 
> Enlightenment and its libraries are all open source (*BSD* 2 clause, LGPL or GPL for some executable binaries only). It is a mix because the person who founded each library chose the license, or a license is inherited from some original source. We respect that choice and license. We believe open is best because it simply is the best way to propagate knowledge, gain feedback and input and build a community beyond your small borders. It gets your software onto more devices and operating systems. It allows developers to poke and prod and find out what is really happening. It's the most detailed documentation ever made. It simply is better. But your “brand” of open and someone else's may differ. That's not for us to promote or debate. There are no other political aspirations for this project beyond that. Open is best. This also goes for our communication. Warts and all we discuss in the open.
> ...


----------



## TheRaven (Dec 4, 2017)

Already been to the site - license argument is still alive. Mixed licensing isn't the issue it's about BSD license period with the system or compatible licenses; GPL licenses are not truly open. The GPL stuff is more centered toward the developer tools specifically and simply turn me off considering a full BSD build. have no use for GPL, its spokesman whom seems to be Stallmonkey more than anything else and general association with GPL branding. Long jaded story with that license and the minds behind it and it's not about open source - sticking with exclusive anything (even commercial) but no GPL and that includes Enlightenment. Done with them - mancing threads or naught.

Anyway, response was timely and meaningful --thought I'd elaborate a bit; my issues with the GPL goes far deeper, but am not submitting dissertation on the matter in favor of brevity and atmosphere.


----------

