Well, although thats not the main issue, CPAL is actually one of the simplest licenses I found, identical to the MPL with 2 important additions, especially the one pertaining to SaaS as a form of distribution. Nothing complicated or special, even when compared to "traditional" open source licenses, which are usually not clear cut on some issues, thus the progress in additional licenses. Like you said, we can use other hosting facilities. Thanks for the response
mike On Oct 11, 4:22 pm, Ben Collins-Sussman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:56 AM, MikeT <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is there any chance you will enable use of other approved OSI licenses > > or any chosen license ? it would be a shame to stop using Google > > Hosting just for this reason. > > Chris DiBona is really the final word on this, but I can reiterate the > party line fairly well: that by choosing the relatively obscure CPAL > license, the open source community is being incrementally harmed. > When somebody using a common license (like GPL, Apache, BSD) wants to > re-use your software, they now have to consult lawyers to figure out > what's compatible and what's not. > > However, by rejecting your license, Google is not really hurting your > project. You have lots of other places to host. Our belief is that > for every project we lose (due to our anti-proliferation policy), we > also probably persuade several others to switch from some made-up > license to something standardized. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hosting at Google Code" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
