The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> So you are in the "make no changes to existing license" camp? Or just
> against that one para above?
>
My home is my castle - since I where in the army I don't like
camps any more :-)
All I want is to be safe against beeing sued for something I
did for free, available for nothing on an AS IS base.
The aspect of "this license permits to make it proprietary"
is IMHO weakened by itself. More and more companies see the
benefits of going open source (getting high experienced
programming and maintainence for free) as the Mozilla,
Interbase and other examples demonstrate.
I started with individual software development on the
customer side. The next step was standard software, to
reduce development costs. Now we are at the beginning of the
next wave, open source. Again reducing development costs. The
closed shop companies will be the loosers in the long run, I
believe. So my focus isn't really on keeping open what once
became open - that'll take care for itself because someone
will be there taking the last open version and continue from
that.
My focus is on beeing protected. And I'm not sure if beeing
bound to any US States law is a good choice for that.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #