On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)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.