Shlomi Fish n wrote:
I don't see using the X11 licence for my software as anti-social. Like I said,
But it is. You are forcing people to spend some of their precious time
to understand the ramifications of this different license, and consider
the differences between it and the GPL and AL.
anyone can easily fork it as a software of a different licence. It's also
Again, you are forcing people to expend effort for what could otherwise
be a non-issue.
more permissive than the GPL+Artistic licence (and much less problematic than
the Artistic 1.0 licence, which some people don't even consider as
free-as-in-speech.)
That's their problem.
So far I've released all the software (Perl or otherwise) for which I had a
choice under the Public Domain or X11 licence.
Personally, I'm happy enough to sign my modules as "licenced under the
same terms as Perl itself", thereby letting other people deal with a
matter for which I have next to no interest in.
My own take on this is that even if your code was better, I wouldn't use
it, since I couldn't be sure that my use of it may in some way violate
its terms. At least I know where I stand with the GPL and AL.
Life is short, and the less I have to think about licensing issues, the
better.
David
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/
95% of the programmers consider 95% of the code they did not write, in the
bottom 5%.
Indeed.
--
Much of the propaganda that passes for news in our own society is given
to immobilising and pacifying people and diverting them from the idea
that they can confront power. -- John Pilger
