On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 15:46 -0500, Robert Carr wrote:
> On 2/20/07, David Reveman <davidr@novell.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> Like I said, I don't see MIT as a license being an issue.
OK, good.
- Show quoted text -
I'm not sure, keeping most plugins as part of the same project is
probably fine. Slitting then up a bit depending which state the plugins
are in seems like a reasonable things to do. Plugins that are clean,
stable and pretty much done could be kept separately from other more
experimental plugins so that people get a better idea of which plugins
to look at for example code and so on.
Anyhow, I'm not to concerned about this. I'm sure it will work out for
the best somehow.