On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 13:53 -0500, Robert Carr wrote:
> At the very list I agree a common mailing list would be a good idea.
>
> The license issue is possibly somewhat difficult, most of the Beryl
> developers would be fine with MIT but I know of at least two who would
> have problems, notably Quinn, I think Quinn would be willing to flex.
> I think core could be made even smaller in the future (functions such
> as moveWindowToViewportPosition are a great example, this could be in
> some sort of library) and this would be even less of an issue. In
> general I think Beryl would be willing to compromise on this point.
Normally, those who contributed most code, got most to say about
licensing. That should apply here too. If those who contributed most
code to the core are OK with MIT, then there shouldn't be a problem. As
I've written significantly more than 50% of the code in the core, I
believe that I'm in a position where I don't have to compromise on this
point.
>
> I definitely understand your reservations with core under a different
> name (If it were my project I would likely have the same). However I
> think a new name might be somewhat important, a merge under the Compiz
> name would alienate large portions of the Beryl community, and
> potentially cause a lot of issues. We obviously both know that the
> name is not that 'important' to the success of a project, but
> realistically a large portion of the Beryl community ( and a larger
> portion of the Beryl development community ) would more or less insist
> on a new name and it would be viewed as a great compromise. I think it
> is the difference between 'Beryl gives up' (Very much not the case)
> and 'Beryl and Compiz realize they can accomplish much more working
> together' (I hope this can be the case).
How many developers are working on the core? Do you think a lot of
plugin developers would care about the name of the core?
>
> I do not think many people would be interested in all plugin
> development to a new project with a new name, and really I think the
> difficulty and wasted resources in maintaining two separate projects
> such as that would be more difficult than it is worth.
I don't agree. I think a big problem right now is that plugins are part
of the core project. The core project should be small and simple to
maintain. There's not going to be a huge amount of developers working on
the core.
I want to make sure that people can go create their own plugin projects
and not necessarily feel that their plugins need to be part the same
project as the core. As long as some plugins are part of the core
project, there's going to be a problem with this.
>
> At this point (and I ask because of how I began my first email), would
> you mind if I shared our exchange with a few other members of the
> Beryl community (I of course would have no objection if you were to do
> likewise) such that it can be seriously discussed. I think making this
> more widespread than that (Compiz/beryl mailing list) might be a bad
> idea right now, at least until a bit more discussion has taken place.
Sure.
- David