Winterflaw wrote:OTOH, if we take an open source project and then add our own time and effort, isn't that time and effort *our* property? the original developers *chose* to make their project open source, so others could use it. I do not see it *automatically follows* that *we must make the same choice*. The original developers have in fact already got what they wanted - other people are using and benefitting from their work.
I myself publish an open source library. It's been about eight years of work so far. I publish it *without* a license - I want people to use it as much as possible, for everything they can, for the good of all. I do *not* expect people to return any extra work and investment they have made - that was *my* choice, with *my* code.
I think you contradict yourself a bit here. If you publish code with no license and you WANT people to do with it as they please. That is, adjust it without returning the code, making money from it without you seeing a penny or any benefit of postive changes they will make that is your choice.
However Mangos chose to apply a license where they do expect some return to the base source. That code was used and whether accepted or not it was used under that license. So, to not return the code goes against that license.
Now there's all kinds of arguments for and against that. And personally, I can't quite understand the mindset of someone that adjusts the code, doesn't return it but also doesn't make money from it. Is it purely just to see their name in lights? I'm not sure. But then again, many people don't understand why I give my free time contributing to an open source project. So, it just provides emphasis that we're all different.
What I don't think is right, is that you apply your opinion of how open source should be and use it as justification for ignoring the wishes of a different developer/development team.
Casual and proud.