Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Jul 2007 19:50 UTC, submitted by juno_106
Thread beginning with comment 253547
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Just one more feature missing
by Kroc on Fri 6th Jul 2007 22:07
in reply to "RE[2]: Just one more feature missing"
RE[3]: Just one more feature missing
by sappyvcv on Fri 6th Jul 2007 22:37
in reply to "RE[2]: Just one more feature missing"
RE[3]: Just one more feature missing
by Soulbender on Sat 7th Jul 2007 08:15
in reply to "RE[2]: Just one more feature missing"




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?