Komodo in violation of Mozilla Public License?

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:30:45 -0500 (CDT), Chris Watson <chris at voodooland.net> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>> 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.
>
>Personally, again I fail to see the point of releasing open source if you
>dont want *everyone* to benefit. 

Perhaps ActiveState (or some other entity) might not want people to
benefit if they are not perpared to share in return.

"I'll share with you, if you share with me" is my philosophy, which
is why I like copyleft licenses such as the GPL.  (Having said that,
IMO the GPL does have faults, for example its incompatibility with 
some other free software licenses).

>Otherwise just dont do it.

So no code at all is better than GPL'd code?

>> >> 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?
>
>Even if they GPL it. It is *their* code. They can do whatever they want
>with it. And license it how they see fit. But cutting off youre nose to
>spite your face and using the GPL

But that's precisely what they wouldn't be doing. The GPL in the
scenario above would *protect* ActiveState's revenues, by making
it impossible for another company to build a proprietary product
on top of their freed code, in competition with ActiveState's
product.

-- 
*****[ 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).