Tim, I think this article makes sense, but there are a number of advantages of the 'BSD-ing' either. Most of the commercial users wouldn't want to choose this project if it was GPL-d so they would want to reinvent the wheels instead of suggesting good enhancements for the project. This option has a more powerful influence to collect a fair amount of users getting involved and keep the things alive and prevent from creating duplicated solutions.
On the other hand I'm not totally sure in that every user is completely aware of the requirements and the restrictions of the actual open source license they use. Best regards, Tamas 2008/2/29, Tim Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 13:32 +0100, Tamas Szekeres wrote: > > I'm not aware of any compelling reason to switch to a more restrictive > > license. > > > Sure, the current licensing arrangement seems to be working well for > mapserver, though there are sometimes reasons to be less permissive. I > speculated about this the other day in a different context > > (http://blog.mapforge.com.au/index.php/2008/02/27/when-open-source-doesnt-add-up/) > Perhaps I'm wrong. I'd like to get others thoughts on this /without/ > starting a flame war (off list if you like; It's not mapserver specific). I > realise there can be strong feelings about licensing but so long as it's open > source I'm not too worried. > > > > However I personally don't think it's derogatory for a > > project to expose which open source libraries it depends on. > > > Of course this is always nice, though the choice has been left up to > downstream users/devs. If they did give credit, perhaps it would > encourage more participation in mapserver and in the long term they'd > benefit from having a stronger foundation on which to build. After all, > the cost of acknowledgement is about as low as you can get. > > Regards, > > Tim Bowden > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Tamas > > > > > > 2008/2/29, Tim Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 09:52 +0100, Milo van der Linden wrote: > > > > Given the fact that MpaDtoNte is commercial, it is probably not an > > > > alternative. :-P > > > > > > > > About using Mapserver under the hood; shameless! These guys should > > > > recieve punishment! > > > > They should be forced to donate to the mapserver project and show the > > > > mapserver logo everywhere. ;-) > > > > > > > > > <stirring the pot> > > > I thought mapserver was distributed under a license that specifically > > > and deliberately allowed this. If this is considered undesirable, > > > shouldn't it be released under a less permissive license? > > > > > > > > > Tim Bowden > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Daniel Morissette schreef: > > > > > Matt M wrote: > > > > >> Anyone know of a .NET equivalent of Mapserver? > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Plesae dnot' tlel aynnoe, but MpaDtoNet hsa MpaSreevr udern teh > hood. > > > > > I wshi tehy wree mroe opne atuob tihs. ;) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > mapserver-users mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > mapserver-users mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > mapserver-users mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users > > > > > _______________________________________________ mapserver-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
