On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 07:17:26PM -0400, Robert Ammerman wrote:
> >> "My needs include being able to keep my modifications to the open
> >> source material proprietary when I distribute the software."
> >
> > Yup. That's a tough one. It's real difficult to balance that against the
> > fact that a large base of incoming software was freely given you, yet you
> > want to restrict the outflow of changes to others.
> >
> > I don't think there's any viable resolution to this one. The right answer
> > is that if you need to keep your software proprietary, then you need to
> > write is all yourself.
> 
> I strongly disagree with this. A truly 'altruistic' upstream provider of
> software can (should?) be willing to allow people the freedom (!) to use
> their software, expand on it, and not have to open up the result.
> 
> For example: let's say I use an open-source implementation of a web-server,
> but then add in a lot of my own code to built the content that is served
> out. Why should my efforts be _required_ to be released to others?

Are you the only user? Then you don't have to release anything. But once
you start releasing those changes downstream, then not releasing your
changes denies those folks downstream the rights that you received in order
to make those changes.

The GPL and other are distributions licenses. If you don't distribute
anything, you don't have to release anything.

BAJ
> [But I don't say that an upstream provider _must_ allow this, only that they
> _can_ (and maybe should)].
> 
> Bob Ammerman
> RAm Systems
> 
> 
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist