Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
The GPL, being by far the most restrictive free license, seems to be for people who have reservations about giving their code away. The GPL seeks to maintain a sense of ownership and control, by restricting many kinds of derivative reuse and by mandating attribution. I'm not going to be bullied into making it my preferred license for new code.
Well, it would be nice if you at least specified the license. ImageMap, for instance, has no license specified at all. Presumably it's intended to be licensed under something that's at least GPL-compatible, but it's not clear what. This is problematic given that other people have modified it, and how they intended to license their contributions isn't necessarily clear if there's no license anywhere in the text of the code. I can't see any good reason to not specify a license.
I haven't yet found a license that I like enough to support in that way. Here's a statement of my position on licenses:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling#Source_code_license
-- Tim Starling