[sldev] ESC exempt from open source and GPL licensing?

[Argent Stonecutter]

On 10-Nov-2007, at 20:35, Taran Rampersad wrote:
> Software developers aren't lawyers and shouldn't have to be. Saying  
> that
> the code is GPL'd attracts developers who contribute in good faith.

The code is *open source*. If it matters to you so much whether it's  
GPL or LGPL or BSDL or Microsoft Reciprocal License or Apache license  
that you wouldn't contribute if it's not GPL with no ifs, ands, or  
buts... then you're not speaking for the majority of developers. LL  
hasn't done anything "not nice" here. They haven't even done anything  
less than any of half a dozen big name no fooling honest to god gen- 
yew-ine respected open source companies have done to finance the open  
source development that you're benefiting from. This isn't them being  
"not nice", and this isn't them betraying anyone's good faith.

Personally, I'd rather they used a less restrictive license than the  
GPL. But that's not a litmus test for me. Nor, given the huge variety  
of licenses in use, is it a litmus test for most people.