Menu
▾
▴
nmock-two-dev
|
From: <sco...@rk...> - 2006-02-15 18:17:37
|
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. |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 18:28:26
|
On 2/15/06, sco...@rk... <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. > I agree, but sadly it's not my opinion that counts. If it's GPL people will have more difficulty using it in commercial environments. That's bad, and regardless of the correctness or otherwise of that position, it's the position many commercial companies have taken. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Mike R. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 21:12:09
|
On 15/02/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > > I don't really see the issue with a GPL license. This is test code righ= t? > 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. > I agree, but sadly it's not my opinion that counts. If it's GPL people wi= ll > have more difficulty using it in commercial environments. That's bad, and > regardless of the correctness or otherwise of that position, it's the > position many commercial companies have taken. > Just to echo what Mike says, unfortuantely facts don't often have a heavier weight than perception. I would definitely pick a BSD- or Apache- like license and avoid the 3 letters GP & L (even if pre-fixed) it makes life for us consultant types really hard. Of course, if I wasn't a consultant I would be pushing for GPL, but I am, and only have effort to fight a certain number of battles. Mike |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-16 11:49:04
|
I don't think the GPL is actually that hard to sell into big organisations. FIT is GPL'd and has had no no problem being accepted. Granted, there are some organisations (or managers) who won't pay a lawyer to help them interpret the license but they are also the kind who won't pay for good developers: NMock is going to help solve their real problems! However, I think having the same license as jMock will remove any misunderstandings. I'll upload a LICENSE.txt file into the nmock2/ directory today. --Nat. On 2/15/06, Mike Roberts <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 15/02/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > > > I don't really see the issue with a GPL license. This is test code ri= ght? > > 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= . > > I agree, but sadly it's not my opinion that counts. If it's GPL people = will > > have more difficulty using it in commercial environments. That's bad, a= nd > > regardless of the correctness or otherwise of that position, it's the > > position many commercial companies have taken. > > > > Just to echo what Mike says, unfortuantely facts don't often have a > heavier weight than perception. I would definitely pick a BSD- or > Apache- like license and avoid the 3 letters GP & L (even if > pre-fixed) it makes life for us consultant types really hard. > > Of course, if I wasn't a consultant I would be pushing for GPL, but I > am, and only have effort to fight a certain number of battles. > > Mike > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: <thi...@gm...> - 2006-02-16 13:03:23
|
> Just to echo what Mike says, unfortuantely facts don't often have a > heavier weight than perception. I would definitely pick a BSD- or > Apache- like license and avoid the 3 letters GP & L (even if > pre-fixed) it makes life for us consultant types really hard. Same here: GPL would probably be blocker because of perception and "risk management" (doo). My customers tend to avoid it. |
|
From: Gary F. <sf_...@ma...> - 2006-02-16 18:28:39
|
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 |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-16 18:31:34
|
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 > |
