adamsplugins at gmail.com
Mon May 1 11:29:44 EDT 2006
I'm happy the way things are. David etc. seem to be doing a good job
of pointing new projects in the direction of existing similar projects
Producing code that others could reuse and extend seems like a good
trade for free hosting etc.
I believe the community here behaves how I expect, e.g. we talk to
each if we borrow code, or if we want to extend a project. Those
members of the community who don't behave this way won't be stopped by
a different license, so I don't see any value to adding it.
If you have novel features that you want to keep exclusive to your extension
- write your extension in C++
- or don't write an extension, write an application
I suspect there may also be issues with applying such a license to
code which was based upon other extensions which were licenced
differently. e.g. example extension from some of the help pages.
I also suspect that we may offer different levels of assistance to
those who don't want to give back. It would probably be best to treat
following/reading/thinking about advise from the mailing list as
accepting an Open Source licence for you code...
On 30/04/06, Eric H. Jung <grimholtz at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I second the idea to opening mozdev to licenses which require source
> code to be open, but disallow its reuse. What constitues reuse? I don't
> know, I'm not a lawyer. But clearly there's a definition (look at the
> whole SCO / System5 / Linux legal battle)
More information about the Project_owners