On Friday 07 July 2006 08:56, Shlomi Fish wrote: Shlomi, you are NOT reading or comprehending what people say here.
Please stop and think about what I write until you understand it before you respond. > What I wanted to say is that people should have the > minimal knowledge to understand that MIT X11 licence is compatible with > GPL+Artistic (where Artistic is 1.0 or 2.0) code and can be re-licensed to > it at will, even without requesting permission from its originators. I DO NOT WANT TO RELICENSE YOUR CODE. It is a huge maintenance burden. It creates confusion for developers, who need to decide which version to patch. It creates confusion for users, who need to decide which version to use. You can't reuse patches to the relicensed version without special dispensation from the patchers. It creates the possibility for huge divergence between the versions. I know that legally and ethically and morally I CAN relicense your code, but the drawbacks make that a completely stupid decision. Exactly which part of this is difficult for you to understand? I would be an idiot for taking on such a maintenance burden and I would give the same advice to anyone interested in such a thing: stay away. I understand software licenses. That is why I say this. > Until then I believe that licensing my newly written code under the MIT X11 > licence is a long-term benefit *because* it can be re-licensed to a > different licence without asking anyone for permission. You are superficially right, in that relicensing is possible. However, it's a stupid, monumentally foolish decision to do so -- unless the forked version completely kills off your version. > Right. I don't mind my BSD-licensed code to be re-licensed as GPL+Artistic > before entering the core (when and if it is going to enter the core). But > I'd like to keep it as BSD-license until then, and hopefully be able to > maintain it as BSD on CPAN separately afterwards. Look, there's that maintenance problem again! Which part of this is difficult for you to understand? Your choice of licence and your generous willingness to allow people to fork your code multiplies entities unnecessarily. How is dividing the development work of a project positive? How is that a long-term benefit? Do not paint this as generosity on your part. You're making OTHER people do MORE work this way. I consider that selfish and anti-social. > I daresay this thread did not quite meet my expectations, possibly because > of bad phrasing of the original proposal on my part. No, it's because it's a flawed idea. You are a smart man. Use those smarts to think about what I have written here. At least admit there's a possiblity that the vehement disagreement to your proposal so far might mean that there is a flaw you have overlooked. -- c
