In this case, I hope the outcome is that our open source license is reinforced – that it’s perfectly commercially friendly, but that there are genuine conditions attached that should be respected. I also hope that it’s made clear that open source advocates are not reactionary fanatics, and that we are open to reasonable talks when mistakes are allegedly made. At the end of the day, we don’t want to try to ruin anyone’s reputations or make things hard for them, like some rabid witch-hunt when wrongdoing is alleged; we’re reasonable people who just want our license conditions to be respected.

I do think it’s a shame that the details of your arrangment are private. Ideally, in a public project, it seems like that sort of thing should be transparent. But I understand that privacy is a common issue in that kind of situation and was probably a term of your arrangement.

At any rate I think the way this was handled might help assure other people who might be on the fence about Ogre or open source.

@leed: the issue was picked up by someone in our community originally. One of the advantages of having thousands of people across the world familiar with your code!

The important thing is that you got sweet justice, and it (hopefully) didn’t cost you an arm and a leg.

2) The details do not need to be public for that to be effective. It doesn’t matter specifically who did what, all that matters is that we publicise our licensing conditions clearly so that people can make up their own minds, and that action may be taken if those licenses are not respected.