Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> writes:
> >   3. Demand that all use of foobar-0.1 comply with the new license.
> > 
> > As long as you're only doing 1 & 2 there's no problem (well, depending
> > on your point of view there might be some moral problems, and people
> > are likely to complain...), but you can't legally do 3.
> 
> If I understand things properly, #3 is legal if the old license 
> specifically stated that the license could be changed, so anyone using 
> the software has warning.

Hm, I wouldn't be too sure - I don't think it would stand in court.
But I don't really know, fortunately I'm not a lawyer. :-)

> But I worry about people *not* using it because it is GPL...some people 
> apparently don't like GPL, which is why I'm looking on information about 
> licensing.

Ah, see. I felt like that once too, but since I switched to Linux,
I've changed my mind. Richard Stallman's arguments begin to make sense. :-)
I'm beginning to like the fact that some of my code perhaps will be
able to persuade others to release their software as free software,
just like it was the case with me.

> If someone is willing to invest the time/money to make a product that 
> uses CSDL, I would have nothing against them charging for their product 
> or withholding the source code for their work, as long as they make any 
> changes/enhancements to CSDL available. People will only buy it if it is 
> better than the free stuff, and if the developer makes something better, 
> I'll thank them.

Follow your heart. :-)

But I think it would be wise to choose a GPL-compatible license.

-- 
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/

Post a reply to this message