[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville M. Vainio) writes: > Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Anyway, I'm just confirming that I'm clearly not one of the "many" > > described above. A lot of my own work is licensed under the GPL or > > I guess it's safe to assume that you are not opposed to using code > based on more liberal license, right? :-)
I'm less inclined to base work on, or contribute to, a work under a non-copyleft license, because I have less assurance that the code will remain free for all recipients. > My point is: GPL is a reason to reject a tool for some Yes. > but MIT/BSD never is. Not true. I, and many others I know, would and have done so. There's no single free-software license that won't displease some segment of the free-software community. I think the Vellum project shouldn't base the selection of license on "do some people dislike this license?", because the answer is "yes" for all of them. -- \ "No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep | `\ up." -- Jane Wagner, via Lily Tomlin | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list