>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.
I guess what I usually do, is say that what belongs to Apache,
belongs to Apache, what belongs to me belongs to me
and what belongs to them belongs to them.
So Apache keeps JServ, etc ... and the client has the Apache licence
to use it (and not re-licence it restrictively), I own the code I create on
top of that (my servlet engine, or application) and the client
keeps their content (the text, logo, branding, content)
That way I get to keep the cool Java, and they get to keep their
content. If I was to sell outright my code to them, it'll cost
them a lot, lot more ...
>> 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 :)
I don't think my clients would know how ;-) that's why they pay me ...
But over here (Australia) I'm not likely to get quite that much for my
work ...
--
Mr Grumpy is now a virtual personality ...
http://www.cyber4.org/members/grumpy/camera/index.html
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]
