[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Re[2]: EOKeyValueCoding

From: Richard Frith-Macdonald
Subject: Re: Re[2]: EOKeyValueCoding
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:39:21 +0000

On Monday, February 25, 2002, at 09:08 AM, Manuel Guesdon wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:10:07 -0700 Adam Fedor <address@hidden> wrote:

| Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
| >
| >
| > Another problem with that being that afaik FoundationExt is not part of
| > GNUstep
| > because it's never been given to the FSF ... so we don't want to add
| > GNUstep
| > code to it, or have GNUstep code depend on it (another reason why I'd
| > really
| > like to have a gdl2 without such a dependency).
| >
| Perhaps to be more precise, we can't use it because it has the wrong
| license.

We talk about dev-lib/extensions ?
I've checked a couple of file and found the following headers:
   Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that
   copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting

We disclaim all warranties with regard to this software, including all
   implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, in no event shall
we be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of
   or in connection with the use or performance of this software.

Isn't it sufficient to include this into a LGPL'ed project ?

If not, may be we can contact authors to ask them to release file with a good license ?

GDL use it because of garbage collection features.

PS: I've stopped CC because I think all of us read gnustep-dev

I believe the whole process was gone through fruitlessly several years ago. I think that gdl was not supposed to have depended on that stuff, and Scott
(on whose behalf gdl was written) decided to re-implement gdl without the
extensions library dependency - but net-community ran out of money before
he could do it.

It's a long time ago though, so I could well be mistaken about the details
(especially as I've always steered clear of admin stuff like copyright,
and licensing etc).

Adam might remember better, but this might well have been so long ago that
Andrew was still running most of the admin side of things.

Frankly, I suspect that it would be less time consuming for someone to
implement trivial GC classes in the gdl than to try to sort out the
extensions library - these admin issues tend to get pretty interminable.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]