Comments on: Google Code reverses open-source license ban

"Our bad," declares company, deciding that the Mozilla Public License is once again an option for Google Code projects. Also added: the Eclipse Public License.

[The_Decider]

Who cares?

A company/developer would have to be completely retarded to host anything on Google's servers.

[mbenedict]

Do you even have a clue on what Google Code is? Hint: it has nothing to do with companies/developers hosting anything on Google servers.

[ranpha]

Considering he mentions 'developers', I think he knows what Google Code is. And you did use Google Code to HOST your code there.

[bridge solution]

who cares?
just the few thousand part tie and full time widgeteers, appers, and amateurs who will be moving the idea of a "company hosted server" to a dustbin under the clouds,
and the billion or so people who will be using the integration as part of their lives.
we are all soldiers in charlie darwin's war.
i offer
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10028643-76.html?tag=nl.e703
as an example of the "designer" being hit by the comet. won;t be that long til it hits the "developer" as well.
"hear the wind blow..watch the sun rise."

[paulej]

There are two kinds of "open" source: free and not free. When speaking of open source, most people generally refer to the former. A question I have is this: why require a license at all? If code is given away for free, why doesn't it have a simple legal disclaimer (e.g., "use at your own risk") and be done with it? Why is it necessary to create complex legal agreements on what is intended to be free? Who does that help?