On 5 Mai, 23:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ville M. Vainio) wrote: > 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? :-)
As long as it's a GPL-compatible licence. ;-) > My point is: GPL is a reason to reject a tool for some, but MIT/BSD > never is. Ultimately, of course, it's up to the preferences of the > author but if the idea is to maximize the popularity, GPL is a worse > bet. I know you were talking about small tools, but since we're being jocular, I still can't resist the obligatory "tell it to Linus Torvalds" remark. :-) Paul P.S. I've actually released at least one work derived from a permissively licensed work under the LGPL (and I did ask the original author if he had any problems with that, out of politeness), mostly because I didn't object to people building applications under a wider range of licences, but I did want end-users to get the benefit of the library source code, including any modifications. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list