Stuart Ballard writes: > > Even RMS points out that using non-copyleft licenses can be beneficial > when it's a net gain for Free Software as a whole (eg Ogg). > > And in this case I think there is such a gain, because the GPL is > buying us nothing (since there's no practical reason why anyone would > *want* to take Mauve proprietary) Oh, I see your meaning. > but costing us contributors. This part is the mystery. If, as you say, there's no practical reason why anyone would *want* to take Mauve proprietary, why does it matter that Mauve is GPL? > I seem to be in a minority though, so I'll drop the issue I guess. It's not that. I just don't understand. Andrew.
