| |
In article <Fz1KGs.CAE@lugnet.com>, kekoa@pixel.Stanford.EDU (Kekoa
Proudfoot) wrote:
> Luis Villa <liv@duke.edu> wrote:
> > > Whether this is "good" or not is a value judgement. When I released
> > > NQC, I felt uncomfortable with the GPL, and opted for MPL. I assume
> > > Markus had similar feelings when he released legOS.
> >
> > IIRC, legOS is MPL because Kekoa released some of his code under MPL,
> > and
> > so Markus released the rest under MPL in order to allow him to use that
> > particular section of code. I believe that he once mentioned that his
> > natural leanings would otherwise have been towards a public domain
> > style
> > license.
>
> I chose MPL because Dave did! :) It probably would have been GPL
> otherwise
> though.
I guess its all my fault :)
The choice between GPL and MPL was a tough one. My main worry with
using GPL was that I have a lot of "generic" code from other projects in
NQC. Now if had I released under GPL, and other people made
improvements to those modules, I would not have been able to use the
improved modules in any non-GPL projects.
I also considered the library version of the GPL, but MPL seemed to fit
better. If NQC had been written completely from scratch I probably
would've went the GPL route.
In the end I think it mattered very little. All of this Lego work is
being done in a very cooperative environment. I don't think anyone has
wanted to do something that was prevented by MPL (but would've been
allowed by public domain), and on the flip side I don't think anyone has
exploited the MPL to do something "evil" with the software that could've
been prevented with the GPL.
Dave Baum
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
