> You agree not knowing what that actually means Exactly. Firstly, kudos to project maintainer for handling the situation gracefully. I respect that he respec

> You agree not knowing what that actually means Exactly. Firstly, kudos to project maintainer for handling the situation gracefully. I respect that he respected M3 creator's wishes. You're quite right in an ideal universe. Ours is far from that. The code for the project is out there, so if someone does not want to pay the programmer, then they will reimplement it in house and no one will ever know about it period. If on the other hand they prefer the port, then there must be a good reason for it such as better compatibility/maintainability/performance/etc. Now let's go to the ideal universe. Well, if everyone abides the rules, then the project creator effectively contaminated other programmers. If someone interested in solving the same problem examined the code thoroughly, then they are influenced by the solution and that is perfectly reasonable because they looked at the code thinking it is under BSD licence. Now that they know they are influenced by the program, they are ethically obliged to avoid solving the problem or they would be infringing author's "copyright" (that is despite the fact that you cannot copyright an algorithm).