Claus Fischer wrote: > > As a non-developer, I think this discussion can be considerably > shortened by just forking and starting to work on the LGPL branch. > > If the current license allows Lindows to make proprietary > modifications and not give anything back, it certainly > allows Codeweavers/whoever to make proprietary modifications > and give back under LGPL. > > Those who don't want to even read LGPL code for reasons of > 'contamination' just shouldn't read it. You can't read Lindows > code either. > > Why should Codeweavers be morally pressured to contribute under a > steal-me license when steal-it companies don't contribute at all? > Just let Codeweavers use their rights that you defend so vehemently > for others, and don't critizise them for doing something your > favourite license permits. > > ****** > > I personally tend to think that GPL style licenses attract more > developers and create a level playing field even for companies > as contributors. > > Put a snapshot of current CVS somewhere for X11 freaks and start > checking in LGPL.
My thoughts exactly. > And don't discuss with morons, especially non-developers ... :-) :-) - Dan