Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock 2.0 License

[Nat P. <nat...@gm...>]

The license is the same as jMock.

--Nat.

On 2/16/06, Gary Feldman <sf_...@ma...> wrote:
> sco...@rk... wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> If people are concerned enough to discuss various licensing options,
> it's helpful to first identify exactly what you are trying to prevent.
> The main question is whether you're trying to require acknowledgment,
> require all derived distributions to provide source code for free (the
> GPL approach), prohibit redistributing under more restrictive licenses,
> prohibit any profiting, etc. The other issue, which may be unimportant,
> is what effect will the licensing have on people choosing to write
> extensions? Would there be fewer contributors because of the license, or
> will RhinoMock get new features faster because they're BSD and not L/GPL?
>
> Just food for thought; it doesn't much matter to me personally.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi=
les
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D103432&bid=3D230486&dat=
=3D121642
> _______________________________________________
> NMock-two-dev mailing list
> NMo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>