Haha, don't worry, I respect all open-source licenses. That was intended as a jovial remark.
Picking a license is, of course, a developer's personal decision. Personally, I just prefer simplicity and openness, hence my preference for the ISC license. Didn't expect that would be taken too seriously, BTW. On 28 April 2017 at 23:32, Ingo Schwarze <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, > > John Gardner wrote on Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:14:55PM +1000: > > > ISC forever! > > Well, kind of "no" in the present context. > > While i do personally prefer the ISC license for software that > i write myself, i also fully respect James Clark's decision to > publish groff under the GPL, and i do acknowledge that the FSF > owns groff and is free to define policies for it. > > So, promoting the ISC license, no matter whether it may or may not > be laudable in general, is not a very efficient way to help the > groff project, and the list <[email protected]> is arguably not the > ideal place for such advocacy. > > While it is useful to remain aware that it is harder for a core > GNU project to gain developers than for an ISC-based project, > the task *here* is to bring in developers for groff all the same. > > Yours, > Ingo >
