In my opinion we should go with the MPL license, I'm just waiting for
the vote ;)
On 9/9/07, Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which part, offering sales of proprietary licenses or considering
future commercial usage and participation? Either way I think these
I think both.
Going with MPL only is IMHO a bad idea.
The idea of choosing MPL was to allow ppl to contribute code to SharpOS
right? And to
write NOT open source code that works with SharpOS (e.g. drivers), that
therefore helps
the project? But that is what LGPL does as well.
On the other side MPL allows
On 9/9/07, Darx Kies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other side MPL allows everyone to just rip off the code, and use
it in other contexts without even giving anything back to the SharpOS project
and the open source community and that is for me not acceptable.
Well personally that isn't that
Going with MPL only is IMHO a bad idea.
First - Please don't construe this as a threat. Chose on your own - I'm just
giving my insight. So if say x is chosen - and I dont contribute at least
everone will know why. I've always been transparent, even blunt about my
thoughts.
I pushed for a
I am not a lawyer, but it seem to that if we choose a commercial licessen or
a dual licessens, the board will need to form a legal entitiy such as a
corpration or a leagal assoceation before they will be able enter into any type
of agreement.
Dennis
-
On 9/9/07, William Lahti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Users are _not_ coerced to contribute back. _Developers_ are. So
if you are just using the software, it's as if the software was free,
but if you are making changes and distributing the software with your
changes, then the license applies. You
On 9/9/07, Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Going with MPL only is IMHO a bad idea.
MPL is the pragmatic choice. Chriss is a much bigger stakeholder here
than me though.
First - Please don't construe this as a threat. Chose on your own - I'm just
giving my insight. So if say
Next post, concerning the future position of the SharpOS Board as a
legal entity...
Again, the way I envision it is a hybrid between the FreeBSD
Foundation's relation to FreeBSD itself, and Canonical's relation to
Ubuntu. Neither the FreeBSD Foundation or Canonical directly own the
copyright
