[Rubyforchange-talk] Let's Find a Project

[Helder Ribeiro]

2007/8/16, Tony Devlin <tonydevlin at gmail.com>:
> I agree with Chad and Evan, an extremely permissive Open Source license
> would be my deal clincher.
>
> With that being said, I am not sure what Open Source license out there would
> be better suited for us.

Well, since we seem to be going for the more permissive license
spectrum and we are part of the Ruby community, which seems to have
adopted the MIT License as a sort of standard, I guess we could also
use that one, both for permissiveness and compatibility.

>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/16/07, Evan David Light <evan at tiggerpalace.com> wrote:
> > That would be my going in position as well.  This allows us to
> > potentially benefit other organizations long term other than the one
> > that we target for assistance.
> >
> > On Aug 16, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Chad Fowler wrote:
> >
> > > On 8/16/07, Helder Ribeiro <helder at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Just a small question: are we talking about free software here?
> > >>
> > >> I mean, that sounds like an obvious "yes" to me, but I don't know
> > >> people's backgrounds on this list or how strongly they feel one
> > >> way or
> > >> the other.
> > >>
> > >
> > > My vote would be for software to be licensed under an extremely
> > > permissive Open Source license.
> > >
> > > Chad
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rubyforchange-talk mailing list
> > > Rubyforchange-talk at rubyforge.org
> > >
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubyforchange-talk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rubyforchange-talk mailing list
> > Rubyforchange-talk at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubyforchange-talk
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rubyforchange-talk mailing list
> Rubyforchange-talk at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubyforchange-talk
>
>


-- 
http://obvio171.wordpress.com