On 2010-05-08 22:12 , Paul Rubin wrote:
Steven D'Aprano<st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> writes:
For the record, I've published software under an MIT licence because I
judged the cost of the moral hazard introduced by encouraging freeloaders
to be less than the benefits of having a more permissive licence that
encourages freeloading and therefore attracts more users. For other
software, I might judge that the cost/benefit ratio falls in a different
place, and hence choose the GPL.
I don't know if it counts as a moral hazard but some programmers simply
don't want to do proprietary product development for free. That's why
Linux (GPL) has far more developers (and consequentially far more
functionality and more users) than the free versions of BSD, and GCC
(GPL) has far more developers than Python.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Show me some controlled studies demonstrating that
this is actually the causative agent in these cases, then maybe I'll believe you.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
