I think more permissive licenses are bad for the Open Source community.

On 27 November 2012 20:42, Steven D'Aprano <steve@...> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 08:35:42PM -0500, Calvin Morrison wrote:
>> There is a reason they used the Apache license and not GPL and there
>> is a reason those companies contribute to OpenOffice
>
> I dare say there is a reason. If they had chosen GPL, they would have
> had a reason. Whatever licence they chose, they would have had a
> reason. Does the mere existence of "a reason" make it a "bad licence"?
> If so, all licences are bad.
>
>
> --
> Steven
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-users-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help@...
> Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/
> Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
>