Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Jul 2007 19:50 UTC, submitted by juno_106
Permalink for comment 253547
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-08
They could dual-license it--put it under the weak-copyleft share-alike license (LGPL, MPL, CDDL, etc.) for noncommercial use only. They don't need to give up on their commercial licensing model. No worries about proprietary plugins and widgets. They'd probably cultivate a nice-sized development community.
Secrets don't help sell software. They don't prevent piracy, and they don't inspire the confidence of the device vendors Opera is targeting.
Yeah, we have open source web platforms already, and I don't particularly care whether Opera opens their codebase. But give me one solid reason why they shouldn't open it?