From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5897 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2006 17:59:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 5831 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Feb 2006 17:59:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cpc3-cmbg8-4-0-cust164.cmbg.cable.ntl.com (HELO zapata.pink) (82.16.12.164) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:59:31 +0000 Received: from zapata.pink (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zapata.pink (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k1GI0v7g012399; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:00:57 GMT Received: (from aph@localhost) by zapata.pink (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id k1GI0uQU012396; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:00:56 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17396.48600.174009.756765@zapata.pink> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:59:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley To: Stuart Ballard Cc: Archie Cobbs , GNU Classpath , mauve-discuss@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Mauve license In-Reply-To: References: <43F4B2F9.9090801@dellroad.org> <43F4B90E.9030209@dellroad.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact mauve-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: mauve-discuss-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q1/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 Stuart Ballard writes: > > Even RMS points out that using non-copyleft licenses can be beneficial > when it's a net gain for Free Software as a whole (eg Ogg). > > And in this case I think there is such a gain, because the GPL is > buying us nothing (since there's no practical reason why anyone would > *want* to take Mauve proprietary) Oh, I see your meaning. > but costing us contributors. This part is the mystery. If, as you say, there's no practical reason why anyone would *want* to take Mauve proprietary, why does it matter that Mauve is GPL? > I seem to be in a minority though, so I'll drop the issue I guess. It's not that. I just don't understand. Andrew.