Hi Adam, > My point was that people who reuse code you don't want reused will > probably do so regardless of the license.
Understood, but with that kind of philosophy, we shouldn't have laws against murder because people who want to murder will do so regardless of laws. :-? Or perhaps a little less violent: why have laws against guns when people who want them ignore the relevant laws anyway? > In the end distributing things you write in source format (e.g. js > inside an xpi) will always allow others to copy the code. But this is true of compiled distributions, too. Aren't you familiar with decompilers? I realize one can obfuscate and pack compiled targets to make them more difficult to decompile, but ultimately if someone can read the dissembly then that form of distribution is no more effective at hiding the source than distributing the source directly. And in any case, I don't want to hide my source. I've never wanted that. > If someone's point of view is that they would like help, but then > don't want to help others > by sharing their code, it doesn't seem unreasonable for me to make > different decisions about how I help them. > Firstly, there are many ways to help others: sharing source code is just one way. Replying to queries on forums and mailing lists is another. Secondly, I didn't say that I didn't want to share my source. I'm only interested in limiting its reuse. > That was not what I meant to suggest. I am arguing a point of view > for the most part, not a strong personal opinion. I will leave it to > others to conclude if multiple licensing styles would cause conflict. Understood. FWIW, my point-of-view has recently shifted from one close to yours to the one I have now due to a particularly sour experience re: my PasswordMaker extension. _______________________________________________ Project_owners mailing list [email protected] http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
