Re: [MO-java-dev] MockObjects License

[Jeff M. <je...@mk...>]

My opinion is that sticking with a BSD style license is best as it leads
to the least confusion, so it's less likely to scare people off (Most
suit friendly).

The only problem with the current license is who actually holds the
copyright. Having the ASF named in the mockobjects license is not really
good for either party as it leads to confusion and makes the whole
licensing thing a bit of a joke.

All those in favor of current license with amended licenser raise you
mouse hand now. ;o)


On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 15:22, Olaf Kock wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'll second LGPL. This means the library code itself is effectively
> GPLed, but may be used (linked) in closed source development and
> development of software licensed with any other license. 
> 
> see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#LGPL for the license text
> as well as more information.
> 
> > So that's not as bad as the GPL.
> 
> You'll also find an article by R. Stallman at that url in which he
> basically states that the LGPL is evil in most cases. I don't second
> that opinion, though ;-)
> 
> Best,
> 
> Olaf
> 
> -- 
> 
> abstrakt gmbh
> Behringstrasse 16b
> 22765 Hamburg
> Tel: +49-40-39804630
> Fax: +49-40-39804639
> http://www.abstrakt.de/
> 
> Wir sind umgezogen. Bitte beachten Sie 
> die neue Adresse + Telefonnr.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> Moc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev
--