On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:57:25 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > 2 doesn't provide the protection of a copyleft license, but it > > would enable us to use the work in combination with any other > > license, so would be ok. > > And kinda draconian. Why are we being so hell bent on restricting > the free license choices for our contributors? As long as the > licenses are free, why dowe feel the need to be in control so much?
It's not that we need to be in control, but that actually changing the license is such a pain that we really only want to do it once. The more restrictive the license we pick, the more likely it is we'll have to revisit this. Since contributors can't always be contacted, the more time passes, the more difficult (or impossible) it will become. If it is at all possible, I want to solve it once and not have to revisit it again. Don Armstrong -- Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come. -- Tussman's Law http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
