On Saturday, 29 January 2022, at 10:18 PM, Steve Simon wrote: > Someone doesn’t like GPLs, can we not just accept this and not tell them they > are wrong.
And if they wish not to release the source for their work, again that is their decision. Thanks for your support. I mean it. I don't get the argumentations here. Everyone was happy that plan9 was relicensed as MIT last year. If no one is allowed to make closed source distributions of plan9 based systems than why were all unhappy with the prior licenses. Years ago plan9 was licensed as GPL. 9front kept licensing with MIT. If you expect everybody to make their products and systems fully open sourced than you should have sticked with the GPL license. I admired the determination of 9front taking this step for years. Now I'm really surprised about some remarks in this thread. BSD or MIT licensed software encourages the use of such software in closed source products. GPL restricts this. I'm also willing to support those projects with code I thing will be of value for others and giving them also the right to use this code open sourced or closed source as they prefer and allowed by applying the mit licence for my parts. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T3e07bfdf263a83c8-M300d0dce4e0019b8b17fae4a Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
