Stuart Ballard wrote: > But as I understand it their current plan is to use Mauve *in addition > to* (and secondary to) their own test suite and only develop their own > tests in their own repository. > > So we end up with two test suites being developed by two disjoint > groups, both of whom are free to (and likely to) *run* the other > group's suite against their own implementation, but still no actual > cooperation. This can make sense if the Harmony tests are Harmony-specific. Otherwise I don't see what the point is. > Basically, I just don't see why Mauve *should* be GPL. There's > absolutely no benefit in claiming copyleft on it and a considerable > benefit from not doing so. Other than the issue of finding copyright > holders, why *shouldn't* it be X11 or modified-BSD licensed so that > anyone can use it as they see fit? There may be no real reason it should be GPL, but in any case it is... so.. what's the problem with that? I mean, from a practical standpoint. But you seem also to be asking the religious question "why GPL"? Like most religious questions that one has no objective "answer".. If you really want to hear an "answer" then you can read the "official" one in the GPL FAQ... -Archie __________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * CTO, Awarix * http://www.awarix.com
