RE: [NMock2-Dev] NMock 2.0 License

[<sco...@rk...>]

I don't really see the issue with a GPL license. This is test code
right? It is only used internally. I thought that GPL allowed for that.
A GPL license would only become "infectious" if you start shipping your
tests.

=20

________________________________

From: nmo...@li...
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Mike
Mason
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:55 AM
To: nmo...@li...
Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock 2.0 License

=20

On 2/15/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:

	That's a good point actually.  The Java community is more
open-source
	friendly, but we're now working in the world of Microsoft and
other
	hard-nosed companies.  If they've ripped us off before they'll
do it
	again.  Maybe LGPL is a good compromise.  It provides freedom to
end=20
	users without scaring the pants of companies too cheap to hire
	lawyers.


If it's GPL in any way, shape or form, many companies will not touch it
with a ten foot barge pole, regardless of what the actual license
content says. I said "reputation for being non-business friendly"
because it's not generally the reality, but the reputation is enough for
companies to disallow any use of GPL, LGPL, etc.=20

Is there a license that is stricter about people not ripping off the
code but that is not GPL?

Cheers,
Mike.