Talk:Carver 2.0 Planning Page
License: have we even discussed a license yet? Who chose it? I'm not terribly opposed to a 3-clause BSD, but...? - RB 00:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Joachim I prefer the LPGL it's restricts the usage of the code somewhat more. When its integrated in other (closed source) tooling which is published, they must publish that the tool uses this code.
- .FUF 19:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Joachim GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical)
- Agreed. I sit on the fence between BSD and GPL: the business half of me agrees that open licensing should place as few restrictions or qualifications as possible, whereas the idealist/OSS side wants to ensure the project's freedom. The LGPL is a more reasonable balance, encouraging widespread use but ensuring modifications' freedom. RB 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
We've got a lot of good ideas here, but in interest of not stepping on anyone's toes, it's getting rather disjointed and hard to read. Is anyone willing to (or allow me to) try to consolidate them into some sort of coherency? I'd like at least one of the admins (.FUF or Simsong to concur before anyone moves forward. I know the wiki way is to just let it grow, but even watching each addition I'm starting to have trouble visualizing where we are. RB
- One option could be to break each major section into its own page so it can be properly discussed without clutter, then transclude each to this page. A dedicated namespace would probably be overkill, but since we're throwing out ideas should at least be mentioned. --RB 19:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)