[Project_owners] Re: SmartSync Project and Mozdev Terms of Use

Adam Judson adamsplugins at gmail.com
Mon May 1 18:09:43 EDT 2006


On 01/05/06, Eric H. Jung <grimholtz at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> What about people who don't subscribe to the list and aren't involved
> in/have no attachments to the community?

My point was that people who reuse code you don't want reused will
probably do so regardless of the license.

>
>
> > 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
> >
> Thanks for the idea, but no thanks. I'd rather have the flexibility to
> choose my own language and my own license. And isn't this what David
> asked for... discussion of the license topic, not ways and means to
> limit mozdev project ownres?

My point (again) was that people who reuse code you don't want reused
will probably do so regardless of the license.

In the end distributing things you write in source format (e.g. js
inside an xpi) will always allow others to copy the code.


>
> > I also suspect that we may offer different levels of assistance to
> > those who don't want to give back.

>
> Just because we have
> different points of view on a topic you're going to discriminate
> against me?

If someone's point of view is that they would like help, but then
don't want to help others
by sharing their code, it doesn't seem unreasonable for me to make
different decisions about how I help them.

Though, having said that, I participate in plenty of mailing lists
where people are working on non-open source, and non-free projects,
and I thus far I've felt no inclination to treat them differently.

> To suggest
> that my point of view on open-source licensing is anything but
> good-natured is offensive.

That was not what I meant to suggest.  I am arguing a point of view
for the most part, not a strong personal opinion.  I will leave it to
others to conclude if multiple licensing styles would cause conflict.

A


More information about the Project_owners mailing list