Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Sep 2005 09:10 UTC, submitted by george
Permalink for comment 28673
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:
2005-07-07
The simple answer to your question...NIH (Not Invented Here)...
The more complex answer to your question, everyone and every software project have their own licensing needs based upon market realities, developer core beliefs, and just simple biases for and against certain licenses.
Even the GPL/LGPL and BSD/MIT licenses are just a family of licenses, many projects use these licenses verbatim as intended, but many do not. It is perfectly permissable, and often necessary to grant exceptions to certain clauses of a license or to remove certain clauses of the license altogether.
It's all about using the right tool for the right job and embracing healthy competition. People don't like having just MS Windows available to them, why are they so hell bent on not having competition within OSS?