I think more permissive licenses are bad for the Open Source community.
On 27 November 2012 20:42, Steven D'Aprano steve@pearwood.info wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 08:35:42PM -0500, Calvin Morrison wrote:
There is a reason they used the Apache license and not GPL and there is a reason those companies contribute to OpenOffice
I dare say there is a reason. If they had chosen GPL, they would have had a reason. Whatever licence they chose, they would have had a reason. Does the mere existence of "a reason" make it a "bad licence"? If so, all licences are bad.
-- Steven
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-users-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting