[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > One involves releasing your program under a free license. The other does > not. If you can achieve your goals with a free license, why not do > so?
Would it be a solution to add clauses that if someone for some occult reason does not want to send us that simple email they have to distribute their modification as patches? That would at least make being villaneous more difficult than playing fair. Some harsh GPLish language about written offers valid for at least three years and such would need to accompany the right to distribute binaries built from non-disclosed modifications. > > Word will spread that the software offered by the villains is generally > > more stable and feature-rich than the one we can offer. > You still have not explained what villainous thing these villains are > doing. If you dont consider it "villainous" to set up things so it looks like we're not doing any indpendent development but simply copying their advances, I doubt we can find common ground... -- Henning Makholm http://www.diku.dk/students/makholm
