<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
IMHO, If you release this open source either license. There is plenty
of room for paid/ransomed feature requests. as well as it is just good
marketing of your services. Please do give credit to the GLLUG for the
idea, Matt for the proof of concept, and Charles for the UI stuff.
Other that that I think it is completely your creation :-)<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Jeff Lawton
Ideal Solution, LLC
517-485-2650 ext 220
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jeff@idealso.com">jeff@idealso.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.idealso.com">http://www.idealso.com</a>
</pre>
<br>
<br>
Marshal Newrock wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid20070428115814.3a0c98dd@localhost" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If my understanding of the GPL and BSD licenses are correct...
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:48:10 -0400
Clay Dowling <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:clay@lazarusid.com"><clay@lazarusid.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Wow, seem to have kicked up a bit of a shit storm about licensing.
That's all to the good I suppose, at least it means people care. I
had been considering using the GPL, but this discussion has convinced
me that a BSD style license would be better.
If somebody can figure out how to make money with this software, I
want to encourage that. If they make money when I wasn't it means
they're smarter than I am, and it provides me with an excellent
opportunity to learn. Also, I can steal their idea, implement it my
way, and try to make even more money than they're making.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
If they don't license the changes under a BSD license, you may not be
able to steal the changes back. If they go with a proprietary license,
1) you may not have access to the source code, and 2) trying to use
their changes could be copyright infringement. Other open-source
licenses may have their own restrictions which make them incompatible
with the BSD license.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Second, if they're determined to make money and can't use my code
base, they'll just find another code base. It's better for me and my
ego to have my code base used. It makes me the one controlling the
ideas, or at least influencing them. That is an excellent position
to be in when trying to make money.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I have my doubts that someone could successfully market a proprietary
fork of something that's freely available as open source. In this
case, it would be like someone were incorporating it as part of a
larger package. Burn Box is a complete product.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Third, my obligations are less under a BSD style license. With a GPL
license, where I have required them to contribute code back, it
follows that I have some obligation to do something with that, like
give the submitter access to my repository, or at least try to
integrate the patch into the code. Under a BSD style license, I feel
less of a moral obligation to do anything with their submission if I
don't want to, since I wasn't compelling their submission.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I don't think you have quite so much obligation as that. The GPL
merely specifies that the resulting product must be GPL, and the source
code available. You are free to use their changes, or not. They are
free to submit changes back to you, or to fork and create a new product
based on your codebase.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>