--- Jacopo Cappellato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This was already possible with the original (MIT) > license, and in fact > there are other projects originated by the OFBiz > codebase before the > license change. The point was about taking advantage of Apache's goodwill (name, marketability, etc). With the MIT license and even the mixed licence there's too much confusion on what that means. With the entire project now being Apache 2.0 licensed there's no confusion. > > > Why would you want to allow them to > > point out specifically where things aren't generic > > enough to support a contract that you're both > going > > after? Limit the remarks at your own peril (that > line > > was for David ;) a little legitimate FUD for ya). > > Sorry, I don't understand. > If you are a consultant selling services based on OFBiz, why would you want to allow a potential competitor to point out that OFBiz recognizes it's imperfections, but refuses to do anything about it?
