On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:40:55PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > > > It is pretty hard for me to think of a function that is usable on its > > > own, useful enough to merit reuse in another project, and too large or > > > subtle to be rewritten rather than deal with a patch-clause license. > > > > So you're saying that since it's possible to rewrite code on your own, > > patch clause licenses are free? That sounds like an argument that code > > reuse isn't really all that important. > > I am saying that it is hard for me to imagine a case where reuse of > patch-claused software is a major impediment to getting the work done.
This is a rephrasing of "code reuse isn't really all that important". -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
