thufir wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:51:35 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>
>> Google Code blacklists Mozilla Public License
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | The Mozilla Public License (MPL) is the latest casualty of Google's
>> decision | to remove open-source licenses from its popular code hosting
>> service. |
>> | The search giant has said Google Code is no longer accepting projects
>> | licensed under MPL, although existing MPL-licensed code is allowed to
>> stay. |
>> | The move comes two years after Google Code launched, when MPL was one
>> of just | seven licenses Google allowed developers to use. Others
>> included Apache, BSD | and the Free Software Foundation's GPL and LGPL.
>> |
>> | Google's MPL ban follows the block on FSF's Affero GPL. That
>> decision's seen | a number of projects abandon Google Code for rival
>> hosts. `----
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/googlecode_bans_mpl/
>
>
>
> "This could certainly explain Google's aversion to Affero, which says
> companies like Google running services are distributing code and must
> allow consumers of those services to modify and pass on that code. That
> could threaten the Google's secret algorithmic sauce."
>
>
> How bizarre.
Not bizzare - its what happens when corporate types
start taking over control of a company thats built on open source.
Happened with SuSE when Novel management squashed it.
Its going to happen to Google.
What they need to do is put strong open source management
champions with weight to the management team to set their
visions straight.
As micoshaft just found out, and Novel already know,
money does not buy you open source love and without open
source love, your unloved company looses you market share.
The corporate types (read money and greed driven spliffing turds)
are all puffed up and ready to loose your market share for your company
by selling out on a little open source love in exhange for some extra money.
They will try to talk their way above the open source guys
but in my opinion, they should be forced to put metal to their words by
running it past open source opinion to have their ideas
beaten down before they do damage to a company's market share.
> I mean the code is *there*, "the" consumers can browse or
> checkout the code regardless of the license. None of the licenses would
> prohibit passing on the code. Also, it's pretty clear that it's a
> hosting service and that the code isn't written by google, just hosted.
> Why would anyone sue anyone over a subversion repository? What the
> hell's meant by 'algorithmic sauce", combining free services with ad
> revenue?
>
>
> -Thufir
|
|
