My view is that OSS is self-governing when projects/communities are of mach-ii size.
Lets say I had to patch mach-ii for whatever reason. GPL forces me to contribute that patch back. Most nice guys probably would do so anyways. What if: a) I was forbidden to do that based on some other contractual obligation. b) I wasn't feeling nice. GPL forces me to be nice. I don't like being forced. What dissuades me from patching the framework is that it's a standard framework, and the moment I touch it I'm no longer using Mach-II. You don't need a license to keep people from being stupid. -Dave On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Matthew Woodward <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:24:29 -0400, Dave Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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). > > Thanks Dave--curious specifically what you mean here. With the classpath > exception it seems to me the only additional thought process in terms of > how they use it would be if Mach-II is being modified; otherwise it > shouldn't matter to anyone. > > > 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. > > But you never know. We don't have anything specific in mind at this point, > however. > > And I don't see that as the only positive by any means. Admittedly part of > this decision is a philosophical one, and it's certainly not being made > because we're scared someone is going to fork Mach-II. After discussing > things we simply think this license makes more sense for this type of > project, and at least from our perspective the downsides are non-existent > in terms of how Mach-II can be used. > > Also given the features we have planned for 1.9 and 2.0 we'd like to better > foster a community of contributions for add-ons (for lack of a better term > at this point), and we feel a GPL-style license is a better way to allow > that to happen. > > All this being said, we absolutely want to hear from users to whom this > will have an impact that we're just not seeing at this point, so if there's > a specific case we're perhaps not considering, please let us know. > > Thanks for the feedback--much appreciated. > -- > 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
