So this is where we get to repeat all of the arguments from 4 (5?) years ago about how those licenses are generally useful, are backed by large communities, not tied to a particular community any more than (say) the Apache license, and support perfectly legitimate open source business models. There are lots of projects outside of the Eclipse and Mozilla foundations that use our respective licenses.
> -----Original Message----- > From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@ccil.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan > Sent: April-04-12 3:53 PM > To: mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org; license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: 'Karl Fogel' > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Draft of new OSI licenses landing page; please > review. > > Mike Milinkovich scripsit: > > > So this is basically re-opening up the whole can of worms that the > > license proliferation committee struggled with some years back that > > led them to create the category "License that are popular and widely > > used or with strong communities". Notably missing from your list are the > "weak copyleft" > > licenses that are backed by large communities such as Mozilla and Eclipse. > > If you are writing code for Mozilla or Eclipse, you already know what > license(s) to use, so this page doesn't help you any. > > -- > In my last lifetime, John Cowan > I believed in reincarnation; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > in this lifetime, co...@ccil.org > I don't. --Thiagi _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
