Re: License selection for free software

On 7 Mai, 19:57, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That IBM and other companies are involved with Linux is an example of > companies that are willing to get involved with GPL; it says nothing > about whether those companies would be more, less, or un- willing to > also get involved with mor

Re: License selection for free software

On 7 Mai, 19:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville M. Vainio) wrote: > Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > original licence as well. Now, I did leave a fair amount of > > information about the heritage of the code, so that anyone who is > > scared of the LGPL could just go and get the original work,

Re: License selection for free software

On May 7, 6:56 am, Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6 Mai, 19:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville M. Vainio) wrote: > > I don't think BSD/MIT like license really annoys anyone. Think python > > here ;-) > > As some have pointed out, it can discourage people from contributing. > I've said many t

Re: License selection for free software

Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > original licence as well. Now, I did leave a fair amount of > information about the heritage of the code, so that anyone who is > scared of the LGPL could just go and get the original work, but that I doubt anyone is really afraid of LGPL. The only probl

Re: License selection for free software

On May 7, 3:51 am, Paul Rubin wrote: > Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Nonsense. They could be more than willing to contribute their > > patches, but aren't willing to accept the GPL's limitation to being > > used only in open source packages. > > Oh, I see wh

Re: License selection for free software

On 06 May 2008 23:00:01 -0700 Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote: > "Matt Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Python's non-GPL license certainly is annoying to some of us. > > I'm intrigued - how can it be annoying? > > It means GPL'd contributions can't be included in the mai

Re: License selection for free software

On 6 Mai, 19:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville M. Vainio) wrote: > Excuse the long post. Excuse the cherry-picking from your long post. ;-) [...] > Also, you can do what Paul Boddie did - fork the project, or maintain > patches that are under LGPL. With a liberal license, you have that > privilege.

Re: License selection for free software

Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Nonsense. They could be more than willing to contribute their > patches, but aren't willing to accept the GPL's limitation to being > used only in open source packages. Oh, I see what you mean--I'm considering any derived work to be a patch, which is maybe

Re: License selection for free software

On May 7, 2:39 am, Paul Rubin wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville M. Vainio) writes: > > > In practice, the probability of hijacking of source code by an evil > > corporation is very low for most projects. And even when it did > > happen, the evil corporation would likely s

Re: License selection for free software

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville M. Vainio) writes: > In practice, the probability of hijacking of source code by an evil > corporation is very low for most projects. And even when it did > happen, the evil corporation would likely submit patches. If they're going to submit patches then they shouldn't ha

Re: License selection for free software

"Matt Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Python's non-GPL license certainly is annoying to some of us. > I'm intrigued - how can it be annoying? It means GPL'd contributions can't be included in the main Python distro. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: License selection for free software

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville M. Vainio) writes: > So I'm not opposed to GPL - just saying that it's not often the > choice that will net you the most users. Fortunately, that's not always the goal of a free software project. When freedom of all users matters more than "popular at any cost", the GPL i

Re: License selection for free software

On Tue, 06 May 2008 20:02:21 +0100, Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid> wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville M. Vainio) writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville M. Vainio) writes: I don't think BSD/MIT like license really annoys anyone. Think python here ;-) Python's non-GPL license certainly is a

Re: License selection for free software

On May 6, 1:22 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville M. Vainio) wrote: > Excuse the long post. > > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I guess it's safe to assume that you are not opposed to using code > >> based on more liberal license, right? :-) > > > I'm less inclined to base work on, or contrib

Re: License selection for free software

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville M. Vainio) writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville M. Vainio) writes: > I don't think BSD/MIT like license really annoys anyone. Think python > here ;-) Python's non-GPL license certainly is annoying to some of us. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: License selection for free software

Excuse the long post. Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I guess it's safe to assume that you are not opposed to using code >> based on more liberal license, right? :-) > > I'm less inclined to base work on, or contribute to, a work under a > non-copyleft license, because I have less assu