On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 11:11:03PM -0400, H. William Welliver III wrote:
having access to the source (and more) the crucial differentiator i care about in the license.
no, that's an invalid comparison.... you can have a gpl license revoked if you violate the license terms... in that way it's no different, and that was a key concern you pointed out.
you are misinterpreting things. i am talking about revoking the license at the whim of the owner, not about a condition that i know to exist to begin with.
and really, I think it's a bit dramatic to say that the risks are unacceptable.
they are to me. i could not be doing the work i am doing now, had i accepted to work with non-free software (or worse, create non-free software)
What does that have to do with CVS browsing software?
i'd be one of the people using the software. and i am voicing my opinion on the issue. unless you are saying that i should not do that, i find the actual reason for the software irrelevant. what i said applies to any software being used.
I have a hard time taking this argument seriously. I mean, do you need to spend hours trying to figure out every website you've ever been to? do you really think the key audience of code librarian would not be able to make the transition from code librarian to viewsvn or fisheye? I mean, it's not rocket science...
i did not say that, all i am saying is that you can't just ignore that time needed for transition completely. it is not 0. getting used to a new system always takes time, and having a change in the interface does slow you down. (you may have bookmarks that you'd need to recreate, etc)
No, but your tone suggests that you have an ideological agenda here.
of course i have. i want to preserve my freedom to always be able to reuse any piece of software i come in contact with, and not be frustrated by the fact that i can't fix a problem just for legal reasons.
Your suggestion that the "wrong" license should automatically disqualify any piece of software seems just as closed minded.
closed minded is only if you have not experienced the other side. i have experienced the frustration that non-free software brings with it (for me). i am not disqualifying the license automaticly, but after consideration because of bad experience.
I think peter mispoke. there is no nda to use the product.
ok, we can drop all the arguments surounding that then.
The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party. if pike changes hands again, then what?
ask them for a new license, perhaps?
that only works, iff the company is still around then, and still interested in giving out new licenses. that is what i meant in the first paragraph in my first mail of this thread.
you know, you could just ask them if you were interested in actually understanding how the licensing worked.
i am here trying to explain why i am not interrested...
greetings, martin.