Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: rbowman Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: naughty C (was Re: naughty Pascal) Date: 13 Jan 2026 08:09:31 GMT Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <10judtj$3eijl$2@dont-email.me> <10juqpa$3i6m5$1@dont-email.me> <20260110184115.4782eb44@coppelia.commodorejohn.com> <10jv43q$3kkhi$2@dont-email.me> <36F8R.627474$3Sk8.623325@fx46.iad> <10k2n44$29ube$6@dont-email.me> <10k31ru$2d8ro$3@dont-email.me> <10k3jn6$2josb$2@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net 0QIi1EIVvOd8Dn67zqpm9QdCnDBqAhJHEWTJ0YYvQ1JjD9DPTW Cancel-Lock: sha1:lHQQ18/Aumag11l9XOrugGGHpV0= sha256:Upgb+rWt7mu13CtWT+S27DRIzzkb1IS8jtFI1Xs/Puo= User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:81056 alt.folklore.computers:233608 On 13 Jan 2026 06:31:43 GMT, Niklas Karlsson wrote: >> How many other FOSS projects use the MIT, Apache, Zero Clause BSD, or >> other permissive licenses? > > I don't know offhand, but I've always been under the impression the > licenses you mentioned are all relatively widespread. Precisely. Raymond's argument was restrictive licenses would deter FOSS development.