On Jan 30, 2007, at 8:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I'm curious. >> >> The original Venster was published under the MIT license. >> >> Why have you published Venster-CE under the GPL license? >> >> Alan. > > Well, I thought that the most important was to use an OSI compliant > license and I personnaly prefer GNU/GPL. I'am no license-expert, so if > you see any problem with this, tell me, and I could change the > licensing. > > Alex. >
Hello Alex, I was under the impression that MIT is quite OSI compliant. I prefer MIT/BSD licensing and have published a great deal of code under that license (http://techgame.net/projects/Framework). I personally believe there is a great synergy between commercial and open source entities; for example, all the code we have created as expressly open source were completely funded by commercial entities. We make it as free as we can (MIT/BSD) for commercial or non- commercial use. The GPL typically bars commercial use because you can't keep any part of your system proprietary. Basically, If a toolkit is GPL, I typically won't use it when doing development of my own stuff, although there are lots of other licenses, such as MPL, APL and others that are less restrictive that the GPL. That's my 2 cents :) - Brian > _______________________________________________ > PythonCE mailing list > PythonCE@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonce _______________________________________________ PythonCE mailing list PythonCE@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonce
