I do tend to agree that patents and copywrights are
bad solutions to a problem GPL really solves anyway,
but....
In pitching this kind of solution to a closed source
business it is often useful to show that there is a
multi-layer defense for your products.
Using the story presented in this last reponse in this
tread for a backdrop; Alice would be going into court
with a license that has had very little legal fire
testing.
Bottom line. Open up the source code, but do not open
up the branding. Trademark, copywright and patent
your branding. That gives you control over what is in
your product. Alice wouldn't want Dude to go and call
his product the same thing her's is, right. This way,
when Alice takes Dude to court she is not relying on
the GPL to save her profits. She is simply protecting
her branding and reputation.
As users in the open source world we can often get
tied up in the philosophy of "free" (as in freedom)
when thinking about how a project should be handled.
I support this... I think open source is the wave of
the future. But, I also think that it would be
prudent to build defense in support of the open source
way of doing things.. ie. I certainly wouldn't want MS
to take parts of my projects. How would I know if
they did? It's happended before.
Anyway, enough of the soapbox preaching. My final
advice on the matter... embrace the open source world.
You will feel so much better about what you produce.
And, anything worth developing is also worth
protecting ... branding and reputation are everything.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:55:10 EDT