On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu.org> wrote:
>
>  You assume that everyone is satisfied with MIT, and that "injecting"
>  everything but MIT is considered hostile (oversimplifying -- I grant you
>  that).
>
>  But some people might disagree with that,

I don't assume that.  I don't care if they are satisfied or not.  If
you don't like my license don't contribute to my code.  Contributing
to my code base with some other license and then trying to do some
kind of coup to get it switched is absolutely a hostile act.

>especially if they have
>  contributed time to a project and would like to get back improvements to
>  that project (but not code *using* it).  MIT does not give you that, and
>  I can see why Bruce would like his Swazoo code to stay under the license
>  he thought Swazoo was being released under.

This is your opinion.  The companies I have worked for wont touch GPL
code at all.  With MIT, they may not give the change back, but there
is a chance they will and no matter how small the chance it is more
then a license that they simply wont touch in the first place.

>
>  I don't think I'll have anything else to say on this issue.  Let's
>  remember it of an example of how *not* to deal with licensing; probably
>  something worse than having to live with a license you don't like.

Here we definitely agree.