I am still interested in the context to get a handle on what you are asking.
. What is the definition of the maintenance? o Is it bug fixes, enhancements, contractual obligations of refactoring, client requested features? . Was it requested, contracted, quoted, completed and then Acme Ltd had issue? . Is it just done and they are told oh by the way we did 'Maintenance' on the product which you are now using and it will cost you $X amount. (I doubt you would do that but hey worth asking) . Did one person agree to it and then someone else took over responsibility and said there is no way in hell we are paying for that? (the possibilities are endless) I get the impression you don't know you just want to make sure you are not liable for something that could bite you if it came up under the type of license or is this a real case? Andrew -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kent Parker Sent: Monday, 27 July 2009 3:08 p.m. To: NZ PHP Users Group Subject: [phpug] Re: legal: retain ownership of code until paid and open source licence So you are saying that it is too late and the client will already have a copy of the new scripts? On Jul 27, 2:44 pm, Jochen Daum <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Kent Parker <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > This is the crux of what I'm asking here. Am I not violating the GPL if I > > > make source code inaccessible that has already been distributed. > > > Interesting point. I would just 'undistribute' it anyway (assuming > > you still can). No one is going to sue you for doing that. You could > > argue that it is not distributed until it is uploaded to the site for > > the OS project it belongs to (eg silverstripe.co.nz) and that passing > > it to a site for 'testing' does not involve distribution especially, > > as it appears that 'test' has failed (client rejected it). > > But playing devils advocate here, the client is surely going to argue the > opposite. In fact I do advise people that this is exactly the benefit of > open source - if they can get their hands on the code they at least have the > option to run with it. > > But thanks, if noone has encountered this problem, maybe its not worth > bothering with it. > > Kind Regards, > > Jochen Daum > > Chief Automation Officer > Automatem Ltd > > Phone:09 630 3425 > Mobile:021 567 853 > Email: [email protected] > Skype: jochendaum > Website:www.automatem.co.nzhttp://twitter.com/automatemhttp://www.xing.com/g o/invite/3425509.181107 __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4280 (20090726) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug To post, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
