On May 12, 7:26 am, Paul Boddie <p...@boddie.org.uk> wrote: > On 11 Mai, 23:02, Patrick Maupin <pmau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Huh? Permissive licenses offer much better certainty for someone > > attempting a creative mash-up. Different versions of the Apache > > license don't conflict with each other. If I use an MIT-licensed > > component, it doesn't attempt to make me offer my whole work under > > MIT. > > What certainty does the MIT licence give contributors to a project > against patent infringement claims initiated by another contributor?
None. If I was worried about that, I'd probably use the Apache license instead. > > Oh, I get it. You were discussing the certainty that an author can > > control what downstream users do with the software to some extent. > > Yes, I fully agree. The GPL is for angry idealists who have an easily > > outraged sense of justice, who don't have enough real problems to work > > on. > > Again, the author does not exercise control when people must > voluntarily choose to use that author's work and thereby agree to > adhere to that author's set of terms. So you're saying that Microsoft doesn't exercise control about keeping me from using a copy of Windows on more than one machine -- it's not "control" because I agreed to it up front. Sorry, my mileage varies. In fact, I would (and do) say that Microsoft forces me to buy one copy of Windows for every machine I want to run it on. Regards, Pat -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
