At the risk of breaking out of the flow of the conversation we were having.
I've talked to Jason (DBO), Dennis (Onestone), Guillaume (iXce), and
Thomas (lupine) about this. We obviously doesn't represent all of
Beryl, but the opinion is relatively significant.
Everyone was quite excited about the ideas, and the consensus was
mostly the following:
New name, with the project including both core and a non trivial
set of plugins.
Commits to core would be made to a branch, and 1 of 2-3 people
(including you) will merge it in to the actual core if deemed
appropriate. This is a balance between the obviously different
development models of Compiz.
License, MIT might be ok, but would have to be discussed more.
LGPL was brought up, this would still allow linking to by non GPL
compatible plugins but be less liberal in it's terms than MIT.
Core of the new project would have to have settings all in core
(no settings plugin like Compiz has...), something like
libberylsettings would be preferred, though this is definitely
something that can be discussed. Also some of the Beryl multihead
changes would likely be very nice.
The biggest points we believe to be essential are the first one, and
the second point (or an even less stringent model).
Thanks,
Robert Carr