From: Robby Russell <robby.lists@...>
Date: 2005-09-13T11:07:03+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] Choosing an open source license

debbie@theanimaro.com wrote:

>I'm working on a server program and I'm trying to decide which open
>source license to use for it.
>
>Normally I'd just go with GPL, but there's one concern I have about
>GPL: If I'm not mistaken, it allows people to modify their software,
>and they don't have to release their modifications if they don't
>distribute the software to anyone.
>
>Since my program is a *server* program, I'm concerned that if I release
>it under GPL, other people can make improvements to their servers, and
>run their improved servers without sharing their improvements with
>everyone else.
>
>Is there an existing well-known open-source license that says "you must
>submit any changes you make to the author, even if you aren't
>distributing the application to anyone"?
>  
>
This isn't very typical of the open source model. One of the attractions 
to using open source is that I can download your program, and customize 
it to work for my specific needs. You can however determine if I have 
the right to turnaround and sell it or not.

But, making demands that if I change the application in any way... that 
I need to submit that change to you isn't like anything I've seen in 
open source licensing. How would you determine this? Does changing the 
configuration file or the path to /usr/bin/ruby to /usr/local/bin/ruby 
in the top of your ruby script violate your license? If so, not many 
people will be interested...and where do you draw the line as to what is 
acceptable modifications?

-Robby