|
On 13/06/2018 05:06 πμ, Matthew R.
Trower wrote:
Jon Trulson <j...@radscan.com> writes:Well, I'd like to move to an MIT license, but I haven't heard any other opinions.I'd be in favor of moving to the MIT license at some point (or BSD for that matter, but MIT is what's on the table). I'd be more satisfied with it politically. -- Matthew R. Trower It depends Jon on what do you mean by "MIT" and what others mean by "BSD". CDE has been seriously hurt by patents and restrictive licenses, to almost extinction, and you know this first hand. And what people mean by "LGPL is restrictive" ? Restrictive for who? I am mainly a user. And for example the "original BSD" is very restrictive for my freedom (and very nice for Apple by the way). And if such a license was to be chosen, I would have to stop using CDE, and wait for someone to fork it and continue with LGPL. MIT has many licenses. Do you mean X11? This is OK. To clear things up please check https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Apache 2.0 is also a good free license for large projects compatible with GPL3. LGPL is fine. Why change it to a more restrictive for users(!) license? Antonis. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ cdesktopenv-devel mailing list cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
