Oh, and as a last point, before I leave well enough alone: * Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-07 17:45]: > I can tell you from my experience that one of my projects would > not have become half-as-successful as it has been, if it had > been released under the GPL instead of the Public Domain.
And in this case, if you insist on MIT X11, it won’t be half as successful as it might become. Be aware that interactions between licences are extremely complex, even when the particular case looks innocuous to the layman. Some of the issues are still under hot contention among lawyers who specialise this field of law. To add another dimension to the rathole, every new jurisdiction thrown into the mix has an entirely new set of isues. Perl has been licensed GPL/Artistic basically *forever*, and I doubt you could declare it unsuccessful. There is no obvious reason to meddle with the licensing situation of Perl after some two decades of a proven working setup, and plenty of reason not to. The GPL/Artistic setup we currently have *works*. It might not be completely optimal for some goals, but it does the job, and any attempt to improve on it is fraught with enormous problems. Frankly, I don’t care about the legalese beyond knowing that it achieves its stated goals and has no clear problem. It’s just not interesting. I’m a programmer, not a lawyer. It is imperative in my chosen trade to have some understanding of the law that governs my activity, so I have educated myself about it; also, the related discussions and forums are always on the fringes of my attention. Beyond that, though? Let’s focus on writing code and solving actually existent problems. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
