Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?

Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?= wrote:
> JanWieck(at)t-online(dot)de (Jan Wieck) writes:
>
> > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> > > JanWieck(at)t-online(dot)de (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > >
> > > > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> > > > > Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at
> > > > > > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD
> > > > > > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting
> > > > > > commercial spawns which may leverage the code.
> > > > >
> > > > > GPL doesn't prohibit commercial spawns - it just requires you to send
> > > > > the source along.
> > > >
> > > > So if someone offers $$$ for implementation of Postgres
> > > > feature XYZ I don't have to make that code open source?
> > >
> > > You don't have to tell the world they can have it for free - you can
> > > sell it, and develop it by demand.
> > >
> > > > Only need to ship the code to the one paying
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Now I don't want to ship the source code. My customer would
> > be happy with a patched 8.2.3 binary as long as I'm
> > responsible to patch future versions until I release the
> > sources. Is that OK?
>
> You don't have to give the customer the source, as long as you
> gurantee that he gets it (for cost of distribution) if he wants it.

Wordy, but how can I prevent him to ask for?

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #