ANN: Twisted 0.16.0: Licenses and Open Source don't conflict.

[Steve Holden]

"Brad Bollenbach" <bbollenbach at shaw.ca> wrote ...
> Peter Olsen wrote:
> > I think that, for my purposes, licensing is not worth my effort or
> > my users' time.  But if you want to license your Open Source software,
> > be my guest.
>
> This doesn't actually make sense. To call software "Open Source" is to
> acknowledge it as being distributed under a license that is defined as
> compatible with what Richard Stallman calls "Free Software". So you
> don't have the "choice" of licensing Open Source software. It got to be
> called "Open Source" *because* of the license you've already chosen for
> it.
>
So the code I have put in the public domain isn't open source? That's
interesting.

> And, FWIW, thinking that you're doing your users a favour by monitoring
> who's using which version of what, and in what kind of environment
> (commercial vs. non-commercial) is, at best, dependant on the types of
> users, and, at worst, and absolutely disasterous idea. If they're
> "end-user" types, you might legimitately be providing some capabilities
> they want, but adopting this scheme for Open Source Hacker types will
> just reduce your user-base by an order of magnitude or more.
>
I think you might have been taken in by a date-dependent (think "April 1"
here) post that wasn't intended to be taken that seriously.

regards
 Steve