On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:56:10AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This item is not very important.
If it's not important that it is Free Software, then go fetch legal advice. This is a group about Free Software. > If the license forces the user to distribute the source code > with the program, The it isn't Free Software. No Free Software licenses forces the user to distribute anything. Even the GNU GPL, what it says roughly is: IF AND ONLY IF you distribute, then... > I really don't mind if it's commercial or not. Are you confusing commercial with proprietary? Commercial => used in a commercial context (charging for copies, support, etc...) Proprietary => does not grant the receiving user the 4 Software Freedoms described by the Free Software Foundation > However, I don't want any other sells the source code or compiled > binary directly without any derived work. Why would you do that? What advantage do you get? You get no advantage at all as far as I can see. > Then any advice? Release it under the GNU GPL, control all patches to the software. That way you can release it as Free Software, but if anyone wants to have a proprietary derivative, charge as much as you can for a special proprietary license for that person. It's the model of MySQL, for instance. Rui -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 70th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss