Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote: > > > On 1/7/07, *Tim Panton* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > This is always a tricky balance for folks. > What we have done in the past is to offer to delay the > release of customer specific modifications > to the opensource tree. In one case > we delayed it by 6 months to allow the customer > to extract the bulk of the commercial benefit . > > Before anyone howls that this is in breach of the GPL, > it wasn't because a) the software was under a BSD license > b) westhawk is the license holder. > (It wasn't asterisk :-) ) > > I imagine however you could probably strike such a deal > with Digium too. > > > you also dont have to give back to the tree with the gpl. The gpl > only states that you have to make the code available to anyone you > distribute binaries to, and that you have to license your code under > the gpl. Its all based on who you distribute to, not the fact that > you created it. With the GPL you can delay as long as you want to > give back to the tree, however you cant enforce that on anyone you > gave code to - they would be free to give it up sooner.
That is exactly right if the customer is not looking for something to resell as a shrinkwrap binary. However, you still need to write a realistic contract. Even if I destroy all copies of source, notes and docs I have a good memory for concepts used. I want the contract to clearly specify the restrictions placed on my future work and the duration of those restrictions. Anybody on either side of a contract that includes non-compete clauses should understand the legality of those clauses. You can't lock somebody out of the area where they normally earn a living without proper consideration(compensation). More than one lawyer has advised me in that direction. _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
