Hmm.. what MIT-license?

1

Just to be a bit annoying, but exactly what “MIT”-license is being used? There is several socalled “MIT”-licenses existent, so which one is used? I couldn’t find any license-statement anywhere, only a rather vague statement about using the “MIT”-license. Which one, then? :stuck_out_tongue:

And wouldn’t a double, tripple or quadruple license-form be better (but also more confusing) ?

What I mean using the “MIT”-license and/or LGPL and/or GPL and/or a MPL-like license (the latter being a variation of Mozilla Public License)

Sorry for being annoying, but just had to ask :twisted:

2

MIT as in the XFree86 licence, I believe. Basically the same as the short form (no advertising clause) BSD licence.

That said I think different parts have different licences - some have advertising clauses, etc; from memory this is though…

MIT is an extremely open licence - quad licencing or even bilicencing would start to seriously restrict what could be done, even by the coding team in some ways

I, as a user and an extremely, extremely minor developer am happy with the MIT licence. Obviously the real developers and the admins are too, as they picked it…

3
MYOB wrote:
MIT as in the XFree86 licence, I believe. Basically the same as the short form (no advertising clause) BSD licence.

That’s why I though, but I wasn’t sure. Too many (almost identical) “MIT”-licenses in this world for me to comprehend :stuck_out_tongue:
However… I’m not that much against the advertising clause in the old BSD-license. For me it’s a minor issue and only an issue if one is using sourcecode from > 10 BSD-oldstylelicensed projects.

Quote:
That said I think different parts have different licences - some have advertising clauses, etc; from memory this is though...

Yup… noticed that “inode.c” in “fs-kit-0.4.tar” contains a slightly different license than the XFree86-license (and the Expat-license). Actually I think Dominic Giampaolo’s license-terms are a violation of the “MIT”-license since it does not really allow for commercial use and distribution (GPL allows that).

Quote:
MIT is an extremely open licence - quad licencing or even bilicencing would start to seriously restrict what could be done, even by the coding team in some ways

Heh… “an extremely open license” ? I would use the phrase “a rather vague open license” considering the lack of rights for further development. It actually grants you the right to take the rights away from other persons. The most extreme open license is the Gnu GPL (everything stays open forever and you cannot link to modules not-GPL’ed or compatible with GPL). I have used GPL twice, though I think I might have made a violation of it in one of my projects, since I used a JPEG-component with an advertising clause (which GPL does not allow).
Btw. I think I forgot to use that advertising clause, so I guess I violated both licenses…? :? I have to look thru that project again. I’ll probably have to use another JPEG-komponent, I’m afraid. :frowning:

But yeah… quad-licensing or even double-licensing is very confusing, but it would solve many issues (and create several new, like complex licensing-terms).

And yes… the MIT-license is between the most open licenses, but it’s not extremely open, though. It’s just looks that way, because many “open source” licenses are anything but true open source licenses.

Quote:
I, as a user and an extremely, extremely minor developer am happy with the MIT licence. Obviously the real developers and the admins are too, as they picked it...

Well… the “MIT”-license is very weak and therefore much easier to use than the Gnu GPL-license, but it is also very unprotective of rights. The LGPL is my favourite, at least for larger projects. For small stuff I use GPL if it’s my own project 100% (or even public domain for very very small stuff). If I am to make small contributes to other projects I just follow whatever license is being used there. But it also rules out any larger contribution from my side, since I wont make any large project/contribution with anything weaker than LGPL. The same goes for documentation. Only small parts can be done using anything less than Gnu FDL (including translation :P).

4

This is the only one I know about:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

5

GPL is not Open, its Restrictive as it forces openness. MIT is fully open as it gives you the rights to do whatever the hell you want.

You’ve got the definitons backwards :slight_smile:

I will not contribute new code to a GPL or LGPL project - I’ll make BeOS port diffs available, but I refuse to add features, etc. Viral, terrible, probably illegal licences.

6
MYOB wrote:
GPL is not Open, its Restrictive as it forces openness. MIT is fully open as it gives you the rights to do whatever the hell you want.

Definition on Democracy: You have the right to do whatever the hell you want, except for limiting the rights for other individuals for them to do whatever the hell they want to.

Definiton on GPL: You have the right to do whatever the hell you want, except for limiting the rights for other individuals for them to do whatever the hell they want to.

Definition on dictaturship: I can do whatever I want to, and you cannot (because I’m stronger than you).

Definition on “MIT”-license: I can do whatever I want to, and you cannot (because I’m stronger than you).

Therefore in your mind, dictatorship is better than democracy, seen from a philosophical point of view. That is, if you use the same principles on society in general, as you do on software delopment. :stuck_out_tongue:

What kind of limitations do the GPL-license put on you, regarding modification on sourcecode? None.

What kind of limitations do the “MIT”-license put on you, regarding modication on sourcecode? Several, since you cannot be sure to get the sourcecode, since there is no protection of the freedom to modify sourcecode.

In what way does the GPL license force you to release sourcecode as GPL? It doesn’t. You are free to choose another one, therefore it does not force you. If you release software as GPL, other persons can choose to modify it or not - if they don’t like the license, they can just choose not to modify the sourcecode. The same goes for the “MIT”-license, though it makes it possible to steal the rights away from you, since it does not protect your sourcecode.

Quote:
You've got the definitons backwards :-)

No, I don’t. I see it from the perspective of Freedom and Protection of my intentions. When I release free software (free as in speech) I expect it to stay free. I expect everybody to have the same rights (democracy). As copyright holder of the software I have the right to secure everybody the right to access the sourcecode, modify and distribute. Every right except for taking the rights away from others.
If I don’t want other persons to fiddle with the sourcecode, I can just release it as closed software. No forcing involved here.

Quote:
I will not contribute new code to a GPL or LGPL project - I'll make BeOS port diffs available, but I refuse to add features, etc. Viral, terrible, probably illegal licences.

You are not forced to use GPL/LGPL, you can therefore release software in whatever license you want to. You have the freedom, it’s granted to all of us (at least for now).

Nor are you forced to use GPL/LGPL-software - there is therefore no forcing. At least come up with some examples of you being forced to do so (remember: when it comes to questions on legal matter and principles of democracy I’m likely to be second to none in this forum :P)

In which way is GPL illegal and/or terrible?
You sound like a microserf :wink: , when you talk about probably illegal license. If you had spent more time than reading MS-statements, you would know, that GPL is within the “limitations” of the democratic US-Constitution. And that it is perfectly in line with the many european Constitutions, perhaps minus Belarus (being a dictatorship at the moment).

Therefore, conclusion is: GPL is not restricted. It protects freedom the same way the Constitution protects freedom. Unless you consider freedom and equal rights for all individuals to be restrictive In which case yo uhave the definitions backwards. In Denmark we would call it a feudal view :stuck_out_tongue:

7

Sorry for doing the Erasmus Montanus logic on your statements, but it was just way to obvious to (ab)use the different views on freedom :stuck_out_tongue:

8
Mr.Jones wrote:
MYOB wrote:
GPL is not Open, its Restrictive as it forces openness. MIT is fully open as it gives you the rights to do whatever the hell you want.

Definition on Democracy: You have the right to do whatever the hell you want, except for limiting the rights for other individuals for them to do whatever the hell they want to.

Definiton on GPL: You have the right to do whatever the hell you want, except for limiting the rights for other individuals for them to do whatever the hell they want to.

Definition on dictaturship: I can do whatever I want to, and you cannot (because I’m stronger than you).

Definition on “MIT”-license: I can do whatever I want to, and you cannot (because I’m stronger than you).

Therefore in your mind, dictatorship is better than democracy, seen from a philosophical point of view. That is, if you use the same principles on society in general, as you do on software delopment. :stuck_out_tongue:

What kind of limitations do the GPL-license put on you, regarding modification on sourcecode? None.

What kind of limitations do the “MIT”-license put on you, regarding modication on sourcecode? Several, since you cannot be sure to get the sourcecode, since there is no protection of the freedom to modify sourcecode.

In what way does the GPL license force you to release sourcecode as GPL? It doesn’t. You are free to choose another one, therefore it does not force you. If you release software as GPL, other persons can choose to modify it or not - if they don’t like the license, they can just choose not to modify the sourcecode. The same goes for the “MIT”-license, though it makes it possible to steal the rights away from you, since it does not protect your sourcecode.

Quote:
You've got the definitons backwards :-)

No, I don’t. I see it from the perspective of Freedom and Protection of my intentions. When I release free software (free as in speech) I expect it to stay free. I expect everybody to have the same rights (democracy). As copyright holder of the software I have the right to secure everybody the right to access the sourcecode, modify and distribute. Every right except for taking the rights away from others.
If I don’t want other persons to fiddle with the sourcecode, I can just release it as closed software. No forcing involved here.

Quote:
I will not contribute new code to a GPL or LGPL project - I'll make BeOS port diffs available, but I refuse to add features, etc. Viral, terrible, probably illegal licences.

You are not forced to use GPL/LGPL, you can therefore release software in whatever license you want to. You have the freedom, it’s granted to all of us (at least for now).

Nor are you forced to use GPL/LGPL-software - there is therefore no forcing. At least come up with some examples of you being forced to do so (remember: when it comes to questions on legal matter and principles of democracy I’m likely to be second to none in this forum :P)

In which way is GPL illegal and/or terrible?
You sound like a microserf :wink: , when you talk about probably illegal license. If you had spent more time than reading MS-statements, you would know, that GPL is within the “limitations” of the democratic US-Constitution. And that it is perfectly in line with the many european Constitutions, perhaps minus Belarus (being a dictatorship at the moment).

Therefore, conclusion is: GPL is not restricted. It protects freedom the same way the Constitution protects freedom. Unless you consider freedom and equal rights for all individuals to be restrictive In which case yo uhave the definitions backwards. In Denmark we would call it a feudal view :stuck_out_tongue:

I really dislike the license debates, especially since they’ve been beaten-to-hell in the mailing lists already… but:

GPL’s limitations require you to contribute any changes or additions you make to the source code back to the “community” - including anything derived from it… not to mention, it essentially prevents you from profiting from anything you do to that code that is YOUR work. That is telling YOU the user AND possibly co-creator of the code, what to do… and therefore less freedom than MIT. From what I gather, MIT license doesn’t prevent you from doing anything as the user or co-creator of the code… in fact, you can modify the code, and profit for your modifications… - after all, everyone is free to do the same thing (if they are capable) right?

I feel your comparisons to democracy and dictorship are extremely flawed.

I agree with MYOB, you are thinking backwards (seems like you’re using the standpoint as the licensor vs. the licensee)

9
umccullough wrote:
I really dislike the license debates, especially since they've been beaten-to-hell in the mailing lists already... but:

I can understand why you dislike them, but none the less it is important due to the many different licenses and their advantages and disadvantages. But yes… it does seem a complete waste of time, but I’m used to that. I am a politician after all so I have to spend a lot of time on things which seem to be a complete waste of time :stuck_out_tongue:

Quote:
GPL's limitations require you to contribute any changes or additions you make to the source code back to the "community" - including anything derived from it...

Not true. GPL does not require any such thing unless you choose to distribute the binaries compiled from the modified sourcecode. This is fair enough. The developer allowed you to modify that sourcecode so of course you should allow him (or her) to see it, IF you distribute the binaries (no distribution of binaries without sourcecode - unless you give a link to where people can get the sourcecode).

Quote:
not to mention, it essentially prevents you from profiting from anything you do to that code that is *YOUR* work.

Your statement is obviously false and you ought to know it. There is a lot of commercial open source software and commercial free software (e.g. GPL’ed commercial software). You are free to charge whatever amount of money you want. It is free as in free speech, not free as in free beer… remember that, please. Btw. it’s not just your work, it’s somebody elses work that you have just modified. Unless of course you are the copyright holder in which case it is your work. But then you don’t have to release it as GPL.

The whole idea in GPL is to release the sourcecode for further development and distribution for everyone. You don’t seem to grasp that, apparently. If you don’t want everyone to have the sourcecode for further development and distribution, then don’t release it as free software (free as in speech) or as open source.

Quote:
That is telling *YOU* the user *AND* possibly co-creator of the code, what to do... and therefore less freedom than MIT.

Your statement is understandable but none the less wrong. You forget that the modified software is “not YOUR” work but “OUR” work. You may be the co-creator of that code, but then you already knew it was GPL and therefore have chosen to play by the one holy rule in free software. If I create some software and release as GPL (be cautious though… Read my second post and you’ll se that blending one kind of open source with another kind of open source can be very confusing, even impossible) and you modify it, it is not YOUR work - it is OUR work. And by modifying the sourcecode AND distribute the resulting binaries you also accept the license. If you don’t accept the license you shouldn’t modify the code nor release the resulting binaries. It is OUR work. Not “YOUR” work.

Your claim of “MIT”-license to be more free than GPL is also false. The “MIT”-license allows you to steal MY work without giving anything back. This is not freedom, it is theft. You take my freedom, to gain something for yourself. It’s egoistic and its unethical and unacceptable. But then… I never release anything with a license weaker than LGPL. It’s the closest I can come to non-free software.

Quote:
From what I gather, MIT license doesn't prevent you from doing anything as the user or co-creator of the code... in fact, you can modify the code, and profit for your modifications... - after all, everyone is free to do the same thing (if they are capable) right?

Wrong. The “MIT”-license might prevent me from modifying the soucecode if it has been in the hands of somebody else before it came to me. All which the “MIT”-license require is a copyright notice, therefore is grants me no rights to work further on it. It only gives me a vague promise that it might one day be possible IF and ONLY IF I can find the sourcecode. The GPL-license grants you the right to do anything with the source code except for turning it into non-free software. You are allowed to charge for it and you are free NOT to distribute the software (binaries AND source code). It also grants you the security to do whatever you want, even if you get the software after somebody else has modified it. The “MIT”-license grants you no such rights or securities.

You would know that if you had the proper legal understanding of these issues. But, then… not all can be as bookminded as I am :stuck_out_tongue: (I actually enjoy reading licenses :stuck_out_tongue: - yup… I’m a madman … heh)

If you really want everybody to be free to do the same thing you can only use LGPL and/or GPL as these are the only licenses securing that everybody is free to do the same. I’m not bound to be free to do the same as you, following the “MIT”-license since it doesn’t protect my freedom. That protection of everybody’s right is something you and MYOB and many other not-so-keen-seeing persons apparently cannot grasp properly. It’s like a microserf-vira has infected the whole world.

Quote:
I feel your comparisons to democracy and dictorship are extremely flawed.

Heh… thanks for that one :lol:
Would you please explain why it is extremely flawed. I have proved in this post and the former post and the post before that one, why it is not flawed. Please support your statements with at least an explanation instead of empty phrases :stuck_out_tongue:

Quote:
I agree with MYOB, you are thinking backwards (seems like you're using the standpoint as the licensor vs. the licensee)

Again :lol:
Please explain why - and please tell me what forward-thinking then is. So far only old long-time-forgotten communists have had the guts to accuse me for backward-thinking. Only people scared of freedom would dare to call me backward-thinking :stuck_out_tongue:

10

I’ve just reread “Division Of Pain” and noticed that also mphipps has made an apparently and unfortunately widespread mistake on the GPL-license. Actually several mistakes.

  1. He writes that the GPL license requires you to give away the sourcecode. This is not true. Go check http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic and you’ll see that this is a misunderstanding. You only have to give the sourcecode to the users you sell the program to. You don’t have to make the sourcecode publicly available. ONLY for those who buy your program.

  2. He writes that we cannot use GPL’ed sourcecode in Haiku. This is not true. Go check the url above and you’ll see that it is legal to blend source code from GPL with source code from a compatible license. The “MIT”-license is compatible with GPL (though less free and protective) and therefore we can use GPL’ed code in Haiku (and use code from Haiku in GPL’ed software).

I could keep coming up with mistakes made by people around here, but it can wait - for a while :wink:

11
Quote:
Again :lol: Please explain why - and please tell me what forward-thinking then is. So far only old long-time-forgotten communists have had the guts to accuse me for backward-thinking. Only people scared of freedom would dare to call me backward-thinking :P

I honestly don’t have the stamina to discuss it… it’s one of my least favorite topics, and I will admit I am certainly not versed in the intricacies.

I do not find debates regarding license-choice to be that interesting.

And so, I’ll leave it to the stronger-opinioned.

Please don’t take it the wrong way :slight_smile:

12
umccullough wrote:
I honestly don't have the stamina to discuss it... it's one of my least favorite topics, and I will admit I am certainly not versed in the intricacies.

I do not find debates regarding license-choice to be that interesting.

And so, I’ll leave it to the stronger-opinioned.

Please don’t take it the wrong way :slight_smile:

This is perfectly alright. Knowing one’s limitations is a prove of proper selfunderstanding, and it’s not a bad thing to have :slight_smile: - not to bad at all :smiley:

And yes… Debates on licenses is very uninteresting, they’re kind of supposed to be. However they are very important - important issues just tend to be very boring.

I’m no strongminded when it comes to release sourcecode as open source - this can be done if one wants to do so, and if a person don’t want then dont :slight_smile:
However, I’m very clearminded when it comes to which licenses giving true open source / free source access and which licenses do not. And making a mistake in understanding licenses properly (and thereby spreading FUD) is something I definitely will oppose to. But of course, for some very small contributions the “MIT”-license can be used. Especially in USA where the “wiser” heads disagree whether public domain exists or not. In that case the “MIT”-license is a good alternative to “Public Domain”. However, public domain is not free, it’s just unprotected.

. o O ( another boring view :stuck_out_tongue: - but at least nobody can take my coffee away :wink: )

13
Quote:
I'm no strongminded when it comes to release sourcecode as open source - this can be done if one wants to do so, and if a person don't want then dont :) However, I'm very clearminded when it comes to which licenses giving true open source / free source access and which licenses do not. And making a mistake in understanding licenses properly (and thereby spreading FUD) is something I definitely will oppose to. But of course, for some very small contributions the "MIT"-license can be used. Especially in USA where the "wiser" heads disagree whether public domain exists or not. In that case the "MIT"-license is a good alternative to "Public Domain". However, public domain is not free, it's just unprotected.

Rather than arguing over the licenses and which is better, I would only like to throw out to you my understanding of at least one “unsaid” goal of Haiku based on my reading of mailing list messages, newsletters, blogs, and posts here over the last couple years.

As you may have read, the Haiku project does not necessarily aim to have a full “OS” when it is done, more likely a skeleton OS (the particulars of this are still fuzzy for me, but it essentially implies no real “applications” will be written and distributed by Haiku, this will be left to distributors)

It does appear to be one of the Haiku project’s intentions that Haiku may be completely “stolen” as you indicate and branched into a proprietary/commercial for-profit distribution. So, in this sense, it seems that the MIT license is more appropriate. Why the project admins want to allow that is certainly a different issue, and probably a different discussion altogether.

SkyFS for SkyOS is a good example of Haiku-code that has been “stolen” - I believe the SkyFS code is currently closed source, even though SkyOS is being distributed in binary form (beta ATM). The SkyOS team has announced that they will “give back” some of their work on the SkyFS as a goodwill gesture, but they are not obligated to under the MIT license, correct?

I think maybe the wrinkle here is what the definition of “free” ultimately is - there are probably many definitions of it, and different definitions may suit different licenses. Please don’t post for me a textbook definition of free :frowning:

14
Mr.Jones wrote:
This is not freedom, it is theft.
I stopped reading here. You clearly have a misconception of this license. It is only theft if my law you are stealing. If someone releases something under the MIT-license then it is not stealing, period.

You also seem to have a misunderstanding of what the GPL is. If you like to it, your code must be LGPL/GPL. Some say that dynamic linking gets around the LGPL but RMS doesn’t think so (this argument continues).

So, the GPL forces open anyones software that chooses to use it. This is no freedom, it forced open source. It’s why I call the LGPL/GPL the asshole licenses. They take way the rights of those that come after them.

As an example of this (you can check fsf.org for yourself), the readline library has forced open at least one guys code. RMS himself stated this. Feel “free” to check.

And you are only half right when it comes to blending GPL code in Haiku. If it was to enter the source tree and something was linked to the GPL’d code, then everything from that on would have to be as well. But, if the GPL’d code isn’t linked to, then all is well and good with the world.

As for commercial companies selling GPL’d code. True they can, but how are they doing? I don’t know one that would be considered to be doing well.

And the MIT-license does enable people to develope and distribute further. It just doesn’t impose restrictions on it. Whether this unrestricted access to the code is good or bad is an opinion.

When people are creating software they tend not to start with, “before we have an idea, let’s think about the license we wish to release it under.” They have the idea and then talk license when it’s time the public to know about there work. This is where problems may arise.

You also seem to think that releasing a peice of code requires it to eternally be GPL’d. This is not true. The parts that are GPL’d must remain GPL’d. But]/b] at any time, the copyright holder of that code [b]can change the license. (S)he just must make sure that upto the change that code is available for people that want it.

You also seem to think that the MIT license might prevent you from modifying the code, etc. Please state the part of the MIT license that allows someone to do this. I really think you should go through http://www.opensource.org/. Might clear things up for you.

I also find it amusing that you try to liken us “not-so-keen-seeing persons” to M$. Does the MIT license require people to put out shoddy software for obsene amounts of money? Clearly not.

The only thing that the GPL/LGPL does is forces people to play by those rules. The MIT license is not so, it is true freedom. Freedom as in the developer can do as they please. Any user can do as they please. etc The only restriction is that the copyright notice must be included along with any derivations, etc.

So then, you can find the original source if the code wasn’t included for you. Just look at the license and see who made it, google and voila!

You seem not to understand the “shades of grey” in the world. Not everything is right and wrong. Perhaps you should contact the FSF or RMS himself and get them to explain this to you as you seem to have a very misguided view on the GPL.

You:
Definition on Democracy: You have the right to do whatever the hell you want, except for limiting the rights for other individuals for them to do whatever the hell they want to.

Flaw:
I find it sad that a politition doesn’t know this. Fromhttp://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=democracy&action=Search+OMD
"
A system of government in which there is free and equal participation by the people in the political decision-making process.
"

Clearly in this definition the rights of the few can (and are) trampled on for the rights of the many.

You:
Definiton on GPL: You have the right to do whatever the hell you want, except for limiting the rights for other individuals for them to do whatever the hell they want to.

Flaw:
If I wish to close source GPL’d code I cannot. If I wish to use GPL’d code (or link to it) but want a different open source license, such as the MIT, I cannot. I must use the GPL. The GPL limits my rights.

You:
“
Definition on dictaturship: I can do whatever I want to, and you cannot (because I’m stronger than you).
”

Flaw:
From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dictatorship
"
3. Absolute or despotic control or power.
"
The leader can do whatever he wants, but this doesn’t necessarily mean others can’t do what they want.

You:
Definition on “MIT”-license: I can do whatever I want to, and you cannot (because I’m stronger than you).

Flaw:
The MIT-license only states that you must keep the license along with the distribution in binary and/or source format. How is this restrictive? How is this not allowing the user to do what (s)he wants? Fact is, it doesn’t. It is far more liberal than any other license that I know that exits (except public domain).

So, you are the one that must justify this one.

You:
What kind of limitations do the GPL-license put on you, regarding modification on sourcecode? None.

Flaw:
So then, being forced to send in any modifications if you release the source isn’t a restriction on the author of said modifications. Being forced to GPL his/her code b/c it is based on or a derivitive work of GPL’d code isn’t a restriction.

What definition of limitation are you using?

You:
What kind of limitations do the “MIT”-license put on you, regarding modication on sourcecode? Several, since you cannot be sure to get the sourcecode, since there is no protection of the freedom to modify sourcecode.

Flaw:
Not being sure to get the source with the distribution is the freedom of the distributor. But to be certain that source exists somewhere and you can find out where from the license that is required to be there.

Again, show me in the MIT-license where it states that there is restrictions on modifying the source. Quote it.

You:
In what way does the GPL license force you to release sourcecode as GPL? It doesn’t.

Flaw:
It does. It requires people if they are making a derivitive work to GPL. It requires if people are linking to it to GPL. Readline has forced open source before. Restriction, yes.

And by the way, Public Domain is the ultimate free. It’s unrestricted in every way possible. So, please provide me with a reason why it’s not.

You must be an american politition. Just by the sheer number of times you have used the term “freedom”, I would’ve guessed, but saying that anyone opinions that are against yours are communist? They are M$ like? Man would I like to have what you smoking. Your little world seems quite interesting.

15

…that was a very long post.

I will have to read this very carefully and think over your statements. You do have certain points of view which deserves a very thorough investigation. I hope you can accept and understand that I wont answer quickly without having a doublechecked everything.

However. certain points is clearly false and these will be handled carefully as well.

But I like your style. :slight_smile:
It’s always refreshing to see people have the guts to stand up and participate. If you agree or disagree doesn’t matter to me, as long as you have the guts. :smiley:

Btw. I’m danish as you can clearly see :wink:

16
Mr.Jones wrote:
It's always refreshing to see people have the guts to stand up and participate. If you agree or disagree doesn't matter to me, as long as you have the guts. :D

One thing you’ll probably notice is that very fiew of the Haiku devs get involved in these types of forum posts - and I doubt they’d get involved in a license-choice discussion at all any more (unless it was internal to the team). This topic was beat-to-death in the mailing list - and the precedent was set some time ago that the license will basically not be changing.

Many of the points you are using have all been mentioned before - I encourage you to look through the mailing list archives so that you don’t have to re-hash what has already been discussed. In those archives, I believe some of the admin team even got involved, so you will have the benefit of seeing their point-of-view.

“fishing” for responses here in the forums are more likely to start a flame war (as demonstrated in several other highly-opinionated threads) than have any amount of positive impact.

On the other hand, some of the information is informative, and I will read it even if I don’t wish to get involved, simply for the different viewpoints.

I’m just trying to limit the amount of frustration that might come of this thread - and I now realize that my initial post was less diplomatic than I wish… but I will not go back and edit it now :wink:

Anyhow, that’s just my take on this.

17
Mr.Jones wrote:
I will have to read this very carefully and think over your statements. You do have certain points of view which deserves a very thorough investigation. I hope you can accept and understand that I wont answer quickly without having a doublechecked everything.
I can appreciate that. I'm involved in a "Is science a religion?" thread on another forum and we've averaged a post every couple days. Some things need to be thought out.
Mr.Jones wrote:
But I like your style. :) It's always refreshing to see people have the guts to stand up and participate. If you agree or disagree doesn't matter to me, as long as you have the guts. :D

Btw. I’m danish as you can clearly see :wink:

1) Thanks :) 2) There are very few people that will even enter a conversation now adays never mind one that is like this. And even those that would, most just don't have the time. 3) My bad.

Lastly, I’ll just say that even though my posts aren’t meant to be agressive, my wife tells me that a lot of the time they come off that way. Just don’t want to give the wrong impression.

18
SigmaNunki wrote:
Lastly, I'll just say that even though my posts aren't meant to be agressive, my wife tells me that a lot of the time they come off that way. Just don't want to give the wrong impression.

Yep, they do sometimes :wink:

Not that I care, but it does appear to get others all bunched up, which ends up making the Haiku community seem hostile sometimes…which isn’t necessarily a good image to portray to “outside visitors”.

19
umccullough wrote:
Yep, they do sometimes ;)

Not that I care, but it does appear to get others all bunched up, which ends up making the Haiku community seem hostile sometimes…which isn’t necessarily a good image to portray to “outside visitors”.

I think I'll try to remember to use more emoticons. Should be enough (hopefully) to explicitly impress emotion into the posts instead of letting people do that themselves.

I must say though, that I got that impression before I started posting. I’m not trying to say that I don’t contribute to this image. Just saying that I’m definitly not the only one.

I’ll see what I can do in the future to do my part. We’ll see if it works :wink:

20
SigmaNunki wrote:
umccullough wrote:
Not that *I* care, but it does appear to get others all bunched up, which ends up making the Haiku community seem hostile sometimes..which isn't necessarily a good image to portray to "outside visitors".

…

I must say though, that I got that impression before I started posting. I’m not trying to say that I don’t contribute to this image. Just saying that I’m definitly not the only one.

I’ll see what I can do in the future to do my part. We’ll see if it works :wink:

Let me clarify I’m not saying you specifically create a hostile environment, but I believe that others do subsequently respond to posts harshly - which does create a hostile-appearing environment…

Now I’m just OT - sorry :stuck_out_tongue: