Is dbus 1.2.1 version stable?

John (J5) Palmieri johnp at
Sun Apr 27 09:02:49 PDT 2008

On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 12:38 -0700, Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Simon McVittie
> <simon.mcvittie at> wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 at 10:30:58 +0900, ������ wrote:
> >  > I wonder that dbus 1.2.1 version is stable release.
> >
> >  It is. All D-Bus releases 1.x.y, where x is divisible by 2, are stable
> >  (it's the same versioning scheme as the Linux kernel, GNOME, etc.). In
> >  particular, all 1.2.y releases are from the 1.2 stable branch.
> Why is the relicensing "on hold indefinitely"?  I have written a
> binding for Chicken Scheme and released it with the MIT license,
> because I was anticipating this change.

Because one of the original contributing companies (Code Factory)
silently went bankrupt and their contract did not include copyright
assignment according to the company that hired them.  Their assets were
sold off and tracking it down is a hard task.  Feel free to do some
detective work on it.  The license is not a huge issue, just a point of
confusion.  You can still release your code under MIT using the AFL
license for D-Bus.  Most of the D-Bus code is MIT now.  

The direction of attack we are using now is to mark what code is MIT and
what is not and slowly rewrite the bits that aren't.  The biggest issue
here is no one has time to do that work.  Marking the code is hard
because a lot of it has moved around.  Rob Taylor did some quick
analysis and posted it on this list.  Please look up the archives for
more information.  Any help we can get would be great.

John (J5) Palmieri <johnp at>

More information about the dbus mailing list