On Thu, 09 Oct 2003, Matthew Mastracci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure that I agree with changing the license to a BSD or
> Apache-style license.
As you are responding to a mail of mine, please note that I've just
explained some things about different licenses and what would be
involved with changing the license. I did so because Ian and Gert
said this was what the project intended to do.
Personally I'd be glad to see NAnt switch to a different license, but
I'm not involved in this project and would never try to push it.
> The code I've contributed was for a GPL project - changing it now
> would be the same to me as a "bait-and-switch" scheme pulled by a
> company.
I'm very glad you say that (now). This is the reason why I said that
the project must make sure with all past contributors that a license
change would be fine with them.
> NAnt works well as a GPL'd project. It's effectively a stand-alone
> project. Any company wanting to incorporate it could simply bundle
> the executable.
You cannot write a NAnt task that uses parts of NAnt's API and
distribute that task under a license other than GPL (think of
Subversion or NUnit distributing a NAnt task for example). Same for a
GUI sitting on top of NAnt or IDE plugins or ...
If you use NAnt's API, you are creating a derived work.
> I don't see how a GPL'd .NET build project would scare people away
> more than a GPL'd C++ compiler.
Using NAnt is no problem (as using gcc or Emacs), extending NAnt would
be.
Cheers
Stefan
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects.
See the people who have HELPED US provide better services:
Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php
_______________________________________________
nant-developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
