This is the mail archive of the mauve-discuss@sourceware.org mailing list for the Mauve project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Mauve license

From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
To: Stuart Ballard <stuart dot a dot ballard at gmail dot com>
Cc: Archie Cobbs <archie at dellroad dot org>, GNU Classpath <classpath at gnu dot org>, mauve-discuss at sourceware dot org
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:00:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Mauve license
References: <ba76afd90602160755t72a84b31l402af391a5dfe61d@mail.gmail.com> <43F4B2F9.9090801@dellroad.org> <ba76afd90602160925r6e3e2d4fj52ad5025b2842f80@mail.gmail.com> <43F4B90E.9030209@dellroad.org> <ba76afd90602160951w41ae85eev11f74a93d08277d6@mail.gmail.com>

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.

References:
- Mauve license
  - From: Stuart Ballard
- Re: Mauve license
  - From: Archie Cobbs
- Re: Mauve license
  - From: Stuart Ballard
- Re: Mauve license
  - From: Archie Cobbs
- Re: Mauve license
  - From: Stuart Ballard

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]