Komodo in violation of Mozilla Public License?

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:57:20 -0500 (CDT), Chris Watson <chris at voodooland.net> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
>> >   Komodo is not Open Source or Free Software, true.
>
>> Avoiding lock-in needn't prevent a software company from gaining
>> revenue from the sale-value of their software; a time-deleyed oepn
>> source license allows both criteria to sit comfortably. Have
>> ActiveState considered that for Komodo, e.g. a license that releases
>> the current Komodo code as GPL (or some other license) in, say,
>> 3 years' time?
>
>Absolutley not! Active State can do what EVER they want it is their code.
>Of course. But I would be shocked in horror to see them use the GPL to
>release it after n ammount of years. The GPL and variants might be fine
>for people who have an "agenda". But it is not a license that promotes
>free use of its code. And since I think we just established that a work
>put out into the public under the BSDL, or public domain is *impossible*
>to close up or remove off the planet, there is no reason not to use
>either. Unless of course like I said you have an agenda, or are not
>interested in helping others with freely useable code.

The reason I suggested the GPL is that it might fit ActiveState's
purposes because another company couldn't put ActiveState's code
in a proprietary, competing product, and not share their changes
with ActiveState.

>> I personally have no problems with Komodo being released on a
>> non- Open Source license.
>
>Me either. It's there work. Glad you think they they have the right to use
>their work as they see fit. :-)

Even if they want to GPL it?

-- 
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk ]*****
"Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head 
of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).