Spelling out the license - protesting too much

[Chipp Walters]

Hi David,

David Bovill wrote:

> (Chipp your reply was a little loaded)

Here's my reading of your first post on this subject: (paraphrased based 
upon your license notification).

"Here's some code I wrote for you to look at-- if you're absolutely 
_NEVER_ planning on using it for any type of commercial gain, IOW, in 
your corporation, or another application, or even in a free application 
which you may at some later time charge a nickel for, then _DON'T USE IT 
UNLESS YOU WANT TO NEGOTIATE PAYMENT WITH ME!_"

Yeah, I guess I do take a bit of exception to that type of 'sharing' on 
this list. Especially since others (including myself) have more than 
contributed without asking for anything in return. Sean's excellent SMTP 
library is an excellent example of sharing w/out expecting payback.

My suggestion is that if you're interested in selling your code to 
commercial and professional developers, then a simple link to the 
website where it resides should more than suffice. That's what we do 
when we announce a new commercial product for sale for RR users.

Now, if that is not the intention of the license you indicated, then I'm 
not reading it correctly. In anycase, your license restrictioned post 
does seem a bit 'loaded' as well.

If your point was just to say that there are problems with sharing code 
on lists w/out licenses, then perhaps it would be just easier to talk to 
that point? Frankly, I think we've all been getting along quite well for 
some time w/out having an EULA from RR or any other such requirements.

Finally, if my above interpretation of your first post is incorrect, 
then please accept my apology.

best,

Chipp