From: snacktime <snacktime@...>
Date: 2005-09-13T14:46:31+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] Choosing an open source license

------=_Part_2115_28328345.1126590388869
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 9/12/05, debbie@theanimaro.com <debbie@theanimaro.com> wrote:
>=20
> I'm working on a server program and I'm trying to decide which open
> source license to use for it.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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"?


IF the GPL was as restrictive as that, it would never have taken off. It=20
might as well be proprietary at that point from the practical perspective o=
f=20
many who use open source software. If your license is that restrictive, not=
=20
only will you turn away the people that you don't want, but probably the=20
people you do as well. And at that point you have to ask yourself what have=
=20
you really accomplished by making the license that restrictive?

My suggestion? Compromise. You won't get everything you want, but at least=
=20
your project might be used (and therefore useful to more people).

Chris

------=_Part_2115_28328345.1126590388869--