On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 15:34 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Riley Baird wrote:
>
> > Not necessarily. It could mean that you want to be as compatible
> with
> > as many open-source licenses as possible.
>
> The Apache licenses don't fit that definition of "permissive" bu
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:35:43 +0530 Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
[...]
> Honestly, I can't see a reason why AGPL would
> be bad, in the spirit of Free Software.
[...]
Personally, I see reasons why the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is bad: see my own
analysis [1].
Please note that the FTP Masters disagree with me
Ritesh Raj Sarraf writes:
> I think the world is changing now. 15 years ago, when I started, GPL
> was the license. Then, Free Software itself was young and not very
> successful commercially.
> […]
> Even HP, in the LWN article, mentions that. Getting a project to be
> commercially viable, mand
3 matches
Mail list logo
