on 10/29/2000 7:57 PM, "Nick Bauman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right: we aren't talking about fine wine, rare stamps or gold boullion
> here. The code has to move and be moveable to live, to be of value.
I agree.
> Marc insists that GPL protects young code. I don't buy that either.
LOL! That makes me laugh. So, when JBoss grows up, it can switch to a
license for mature code (ie: BSD). :-)
It sounds like JBoss is getting more mature. So, that argument suggests even
further that there is no reason for JBoss to be GPL.
> If I GPL to protect my young code I assume my code is vulnerable to
> someone putting it into a commercial product and selling it where I would
> miss out on the revenue? Pshaw! There is no viable motive there. And every
> line of code I subseqently write undermines their commercial position.
Bingo.
> Or another reason is because I'm afraid someone *gasp* will incorporate it
> into their other BSD-style licensed project and steal my mindshare /
> marketshare? So someone with more time and money and expertise
> might do a better job? Isn't that what we want? Better code? Or is
> _control_ over my crap-tastic code a better thing? I don't think so.
LOL!
-jon
--
http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
