On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Dominic Fandrey <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24/03/2010 15:34, Matt Turner wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Dominic Fandrey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On 23/03/2010 23:54, Zachary wrote: >>>> In my other pursuits I ended up interviewing LordHavoc (Forest Hale) about >>>> this >>>> and thought you guys might be interested too: >>>> http://timedoctor.org/2010/03/forest-hale-interview-about-nexuiz-and-open-source/ >>>> >>>> Hopefully this will put to rest the majority of the issues people have >>>> with the commercial >>>> version of Nexuiz >>> >>> It's kinda sad that people didn't relicense their patches. >>> >>> This is just why I prefer the 2-clause BSD license. It would have >>> spared them the need to reimplement everything. Now the GPL is >>> preventing them from getting contributions from a commercial entity. >> >> Good God. >> >> _This_ is what you think the solution is? You feel bad for the _company_? > > Well, I feel bad for both parties. The GPL project won't get any > contributions and the company has a lot of redundant work - what a > waste of time. > >> On, just use the 2-clause BSD so that some company can copy all your >> code, without your consent, or even knowledge, and make a commercial >> application from it for the financial benefit of themselves? > > By using 2-clause BSD I give them my consent. I don't need knowledge > or financial benefit.
But you're assuming that all the contributors did, or did want, to give their consent. This is clearly not the case, as zakk's article and many contributors have said. Matt _______________________________________________ ioquake3 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl.
