I'd rather it remain as is. Going to a copyleft license means more thought process involved on the part of developers and organizations in how the framework is used (although the majority of use will comply with the GPL v3).
Nobody is going to fork mach-ii. It doesn't make sense for a project/community the size of mach-ii. If you were a vendor and mach-ii was your product I could see moving to a more restrictive license ala GPL and thus "protecting your investment" from competition. For a tiny web framework, the move doesn't make sense to me. The only positive is the ability to incorporate other GPL-licensed code into the framework, but I just see that as very unlikely at this time. -Dave On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Matthew Woodward <[email protected]>wrote: > > > I thought this was a nice follow-up to our post concerning the potential > license change to Mach-II: > http://thenitai.com/2009/10/14/why-gpl/ > > No responses yet? Even if you don't care about the license change we'd love > to hear that too. :-) Just trying to take a pulse before we make a change. > > Thanks! > > -- > Matthew Woodward > [email protected] > http://mpwoodward.posterous.com > identi.ca/Twitter: @mpwoodward > > Please do not send me proprietary file formats such as Word, PowerPoint, > etc. as attachments. > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to Mach-II for CFML list. 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/mach-ii-for-coldfusion?hl=en SVN: http://greatbiztoolsllc.svn.cvsdude.com/mach-ii/ Wiki / Documentation / Tickets: http://greatbiztoolsllc.trac.cvsdude.com/mach-ii/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
