OK I am waiting for Markus's reply.
Here is how i see it. More People use our code the more consultancy we can
provide even for proprietary. But I also agree on people respecting our work
:)

Code wise from stuff that is being used actively its only.

1. Seif
2. Natan
3. Siegfried
4. Mikkel
5. Markus
----------------------------
6. Alex (the focus stuff although not applied yet, so not sure if it counts)
7. KaKaRoTo (he send some fixes for LRU)

Cheers
Seif


2010/1/7 Siegfried Gevatter <email address hidden>

> Back to this, I thought I'd make sense to analyze what this means before
> we do any decision. Please correct me if there's anything I got wrong!
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> CURRENT SITUATION (LGPLv3+)
>
> What can we do?
>  - We can copy code from files licensed under the LGPLv3+ or the LGPLv2.1+
> (note the "or later" on both of them).
>
> What can other do?
>  - They can copy code from Zeitgeist into files licensed under the GPLv3,
> GPLv3+, LGPLv3 or LGPLv3+. If they are using LGPLv2+, they can update to
> LGPLv3+ without needing the consent of all developers (as they have already
> given consent if it's "or later").
>  - They can use Zeitgeist, over D-Bus or using the Python module, no matter
> what license their software has (even proprietary).
>
> What advantages does it have?
>  - It has protection against DRM, ie. "tivoization" (good for the users).
>  - It has protection against patents.
>  - It has been updated to be more international, but GPLv2 has already won
> court cases, so this may not be that important.
>  - Maybe more stuff, I don't really know (but personally I trust the FSF's
> criteria defending version 3 over the 2).
>
> SITUATION WITH LGPLv2.1+
>
> What can we do?
>  - Copy code from LGPLv3+ and LGPLv2.1+.
>
> What can others do?
>  - They can copy code from Zeitgeist into files licensed under the GPLv2,
> GPLv2+, LGPLv2.1, LGPLv2.1+ GPLv3, GPLv3+, LGPLv3, LGPLv3+.
>  - They can use Zeitgeist, over D-Bus or using the Python module, no matter
> what license their software has (even proprietary).
>
> SUMMARIZING, THE CHANGES:
>
> What can we do?
>  - The same as before, we gain nothing changing the license.
>
> What can others do?
>  - They gain the possibility to copy code from Zeitgeist into files
> licensed under the GPLv2, the GPLv2+, the LGPLv2.1 or the LGPLv2.1+.
>
> Additionally, our users lose protection against DRM and also the patents
> chunk.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Looking at this, I don't think we should switch, as by the switch we and
> our users are loosing the advantages GPLv3 gives, only to allow other
> people to copy code into {,L}GPLv2{,+} code. Myself, I'm writing the
> code for Zeitgeist, if others want to copy it they should respect my
> license and upgrade (also getting the advantages of version 3) if they
> really want (or, if they are interested in a chunk only I touched they
> may poke me and bribe me to give them that part under GPL2 because of a
> very good reason).
>
> --
> License change "LGPL 3" to "LGPL 2.1 or later"
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/499788
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to The
> Zeitgeist Project.
>
> Status in Zeitgeist Framework: New
>
> Bug description:
> There's a push to change the license of the codebase from "LGPL 3" to "LGPL
> 2.1 or later".
>
> As it stands we have full consent from Seif Lotfy and Mikkel Kamstrup.
> Siegfried Gevatter has made a conditional +1:
>
>  "If _everyone_ else wants to switch from "LGPL3 or later" to "LGPL 2.1or
> later", I'm fine with it."
>
> Of the core contributors Markus Korn has not answered yet.
>
> If Markus agrees the next logical step is to create a list of other
> contributors we have that should be heard.
>
>
>
>