On Saturday 02 December 2006 18:11, Andrew N. Shrosbree wrote: > Horst, > > The few contributions made to Argus by programmers outside my control > showed complete disregard for Argus' very structured, modular design. This > may have happened because these programmers were simply trying to prove > that something could be done. Nevertheless, there is no way that my team > has the time to rewrite code contributed by hobby programmers. > > Yes, this does argue in favour of allowing the code to be branched so that > hackers can use (abuse?) the code as they see fit, but this would > necessitate ArgusConnect's washing its hands of responsibility for such > branched code. No, I am not being sarcastic or petulant: this seems like a > good solution, IMO. Absolutely, no-one would expect you to support forked code. Indeed the GPL explicitly states this, and obliges third-parties to clearly. document their changes. (presumably one of many reasons why your lawyers recommended it to you) Personally I would have no objection to you forbidding the use of the word "Argus" in connection with such versions to underline the point. (cf the "Fedora", formerly "White Hat" distribution of Linux, so called as its creators are forbidden to call it Red Hat)
Ian
pgpPHHs8QPO4w.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
