> I like the X11 license. It says you can do anything you want as long as > you don't remove the copyrightsd from the code.
That sounds really good. But how does it differ from the BSD license? Or is it because BSD requires you to credit elsewhere for apps etc not just in code? > This really helped Mono get off the ground, many contributors would not > have joined had it used a more restrictive license. I fully agree. I understand some members have concerns about code protection. Maybe they could elaborate more exactly on what issues are most important to them about code protection. > We do want people to use our code, right? > Also with a dual liceses, who get the money? Who negoeates the To me, Id like to have users use what we build. Notoriety comes what ever way. > contracts? Dual licenses only make sense for a project "owned by a > company. Not quite - although Im not sure if we are speaking about the same. Indy is dual licensed. It allows the user to choose BSD *or* MPL - Their choice. Is that what you meant by dual license? > HP and Intel would only contribute code to Mono after we switched the > libraries to X11. Yes, because GPL presents big problems to them legally and otherwise. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ SharpOS-Developers mailing list SharpOS-Developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sharpos-developers
