28 Nov
2012
28 Nov
'12
1:47 a.m.
I think more permissive licenses are bad for the Open Source community.
On 27 November 2012 20:42, Steven D'Aprano <steve(a)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(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help(a)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