On Saturday 11 June 2005 12:12, Esben Stien wrote: > It means the project will receive less contribution from free software > developers. I certainly would not give up my copyright on free > software so that someone else could release it as non free software.
Only to those who agree with your views. While I will *NOT* say we've got enough contributors, I can say that we're doing pretty good with the people who agree with their policies thus far. (We == the asterisk community) > > I am saving a pile of money > In my opinion, the freedom should outweigh this. I would gladly donate > this saved money to this project if this dual license issue didn't > exist, as I do with many other projects. Six of one, half dozen of the other, IMO. I don't adhere to a lot of what RMS rants and raves about, but those types are required to drive the effort to the far right so that we can have some semblance of a middle. :-) > This is not really what he says. He's worried about his free software > contribution being offered to third parties as non free > software. Money is not an issue here. That's why Digium requires your code to be disclaimed. If you don't agree, you don't disclaim and your code stays out of the dual-licensed software and everyone's happy. > > I feel that blasting Digium for excercising their right to do this > > is in poor taste, though. > I must have missed this blasting. It was a kind of passive-agressive blasting, I'll admit. -A. _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
