<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Robert McNamara <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robert.mcnamara@gmail.com">robert.mcnamara@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Chris Ribe <<a href="mailto:chrisribe@gmail.com">chrisribe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Disallowing derivative works would be a pretty ass-backwards way of<br>
> encouraging people to build upon your work.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>But an excellent way of encouraging them to learn on their own.</blockquote></div><br>No, it's a terrible way of encouraging them to learn on their own, which is what I was getting at earlier. <br><br>I am aware that there is a long history of popular non-GPL themes, but a license that "disallows copying or derivative works" is unlike any Creative Commons license I am aware of. <br>
<br>That said, I'm not trying to persuade you to pick a particular license for your unreleased theme. I might even pony up for your (awesome looking) proprietary theme and the (not so special looking) font if I the font in question wasn't so...blah. My only point is that releasing low cost high quality proprietary software is just about the worst way imaginable to encourage people to produce their own competing software.<br>
<br>Seriously, if Microsoft claimed that the extended free public beta of Windows 7 was intended to encourage Linux development, would you believe them? <br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Chris Ribe<br><br>