On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Sidney Cammeresi wrote: > BSD code always remains free even if someone makes their own > closed-source fork. Sun can take OpenSSH and release a binary version, > but that doesn't affect my ability to download the source code from > openssh.com. OpenSSH will always remain free irrespective of what Sun > or anyone else does. In your scenario, the OpenSSH released by Sun does not remain free, but if it had been GPL'd, then Sun would have to keep it free. > The only thing I can't get are Sun's changes because they are owned by > Sun. If getting other people and companies to work for you for free is > your goal though, Of course I would want them to work "for me" (or for the project) on further development of code I have produced. A better way to say it is that Sun would be working *with* me or collaborating with me instead of working for me. Sun would benefit by getting use of my code and I would benefit from Sun's contributions to my code base. That sounds all good to me. In the alternative BSDL approach, which you seem to prefer, Sun uses my code, sells a competing product based on my code, takes away some of my users, reduces the interest in my product, and they give me nothing in return. That does not sound better to me, so I would prefer the GPL to the BSDL. > then you will probably want to follow the example of the RIAA/DRM lobby > and wrap your code in a restrictive license like the GPL. Interesting. The RIAA is using the GPL? Or are you saying that GPL is a form of DRM? I guess I'm wasting my time here -- go read up on it and then get back to us. > This way, people who want to use your software will be required to use > it only in the ways you permit. The GPL doesn't restrict uses of code, it just restricts how it can be copied and distributed. You can use a program for any purpose at all (e.g., use Emacs to write anti-GPL messages). Mike