license suggestions?

Steve Holden sholden at
Mon Jul 9 16:38:55 CEST 2001

"Chris Watson" <chris at> wrote in message
news:mailman.994639514.14007.python-list at
[ ... ]
> Some of us like capitolsim more then communism. *shrug*
And some of us wonder what it is about the GPL that stops your previous,
liberally-licensed, version from existing? If you incorporate URLs in your
code so anyone reading the source can find your original versions, why is
publishing the code as part of a GPL'd package any worse than publishing it
under a proprietary license?

Note, I am not arguing that you should change your license terms. Your
software, your choice. But I am genuinely puzzled as to why you'd prefer
someone to include your code in proprietary solutions that don't make it
available to anyone else over having it published under the  GPL in such a
way that people can always get back to your implementations with their (to
you) satisfactory licensing terms.

By the way, it's nice to meet someone else whose typing is as bad as mine!



More information about the Python-list mailing list