Hi Call me a fanatic but:
William Lahti wrote: > On 8/31/07, Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> That was the point of weakening the copyleft a bit by using MPL or >>> LGPL. The MPL does not require that code linked to it is licensed >>> under a compatible license. It just doesn't care. >>> >> Which is great for adoption. If we could patch a BSD clause on top, it >> provides added benefits, but not necessary. >> > > I think having dual licensing with BSD/MPL is going to moot the > copyleft. But, on a commercial stance, we could provide BSD licensing > terms for business interests under a small fee, which would go to the > project for use for hosting costs, grants, etc. In order for that to > work we'd have to set up a nonprofit, which is totally possible if the > size of the project increases somewhat. > I am still a fan of GPL/LGPL. I dislike the idea of using MPL or even mixing it with GPL/LGPL. GPL should be enforced where appropriated and LGPL when needed. If someone wants to use it commercially, then ok, but the project should profit from it. Either open source or commercially usage, should help the project. Chriss. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
