On Thu, 28.05.09 00:52, Patrick Shirkey (pshirkey at boosthardware.com) wrote: >> D-Bus is available under AFL and GPL2. AFL should be fine for LGPL >> uses and GPL2 should be fine for GPL uses. Even companies like Nokia >> who run closed source software on Linux are fine with D-Bus. > > After the past couple of days I think Nokia is probably a bad example to > use for leadership in automated systems design. Leadership? Who said leadership? I am just using Nokia as one example here. Nokia has one of the more extreme licensing policies, e.g. they don't use GPL3 software and so on. But still, D-Bus is perfectly fine with them. If some JACK folks try to avoid D-Bus due to licensing reasons regarding LGPL then they are apparently smoking something that is not good for their health. > There are some very real issues that jack has with being tied > permanently to dbus and it has been pretty much written off as a compile > time dependency with the current direction. The aim is to give jack a > more modular api where dbus can be one of many communication interfaces. Gah, this is so wrong in so many ways, but uh, neither is this a JACK mailing list nor am I a JACK developer, so I'll leave it with that. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
