Jim Richards wrote:
<snip>
> In all of these licence documents, there is no mention of
> re-licencing the software on for profit, nor a restriction to do so.
> But the client who I licence it on to, must be under the
> same conditions I am, in regards to branding and
> ownership.
I am not a lawyer so I don't know if "re-licensing" is legal if not
actually stated that is not allowed to be re-licensed. So I don't think
that you can say that Jetspeed is no longer on the Jetspeed Public
License but is now under the Joe Public License and is closed source.
> So it might be free, in the commercail transaction, but not
> free in the sense of "in the public domain" free. I, and those
> I develop for are still under the requirement of ownership of the
> software. that is, I don't own it, Working dogs/Exolab and Apache
> do ...
Technically you can sell it. You can sell it for $1,000,000,000,000 if
you want. But you also have to meet the advertising clause. The second
you clients see that it is essentially Apache code they will want their
money back and just download it :)
So your clients want to pay you to do some work and then *they* want to
own it? This is interesting. Most commercial software is never *owned*
except by the company you bought if from. Microsoft just *licenses* you
to use their software. Which is BS. For some reason the general public
thinks that it is OK if their software is buggy as *ell, crashes all the
time but then they don't own it. :0. If a hardware company did this
they couldn't pull it off. :)
Kevin
--
Kevin A Burton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://relativity.yi.org
Message to SUN: "Please Open Source Java!"
"For evil to win is for good men to do nothing."
Open Source -> Join the conspiracy!
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
