Re: [dev] [PATCH] Add tab-completion file-name expansion.

From: Nick <suckless-dev_AT_njw.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 16:33:45 -0400

Quoth FRIGN:
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 20:19:15 +0200
> Michal Nazarewicz <mina86_AT_mina86.com> wrote:
> > + 2014 Google Inc. // author: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86_AT_mina86.com>
>
> I don't know about you guys but I don't want Google to infest the
> license. Michal, either you join the license with your name only or
> forget about the patch.
> ...
> This is too much of a risk to carry!
 
I don't really see the risk here, actually. I agree it's dangerous
to trust large companies in a legal arena where their money can make
them incredibly powerful, but how could that affect us, with this?

It's permissively licensed, so beyond patents, I can't see what
stick you're afraid of them beating us with. And if you are that
worried about companies trying to trick you into patent lawsuits
(which, frankly, I don't think we should be here), consider the
Apache license.

> I've had very bad experiences with big companies having
> licensing-rights on smaller software.

Was it relevant to this case, of a large company potentially gaining
a percentage of copyright over some permissively licensed code? I
doubt it, I can't think of an example of anything bad resulting from
a situation like that.

> Concerning the patch itself: Is the added huge complexity worth it for
> this small feature?

It's another one of those places where I think the answer is "not in
the general case; add it to the wiki". ISTR several previous
discussions of patches which roughly concluded "dmenu is not a
shell".

Nick
Received on Mon Jul 07 2014 - 22:33:45 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Jul 07 2014 - 22:36:11 CEST