On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 05:23:44PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote: > continues. Nobody can buy an open source project and make it closed source > without _all_ it's contributors agreeing on a license change. I for my own > won't.
And the license change only effects new code. You can't relicense already published code. I'm not going to be closing off my code either, so ... > * We know that somebody big and evil will rape our project in future without > giving a shit back to the community (very probably) All of this stuff remains to be seen. I don't have a lot of faith in NAI since I haven't touched one of their products in so long that I didn't know they had something other than the AV product. I doubt they'll give code back to the OS project since I don't believe they use perl in their code. So what they can offer is: 1) algorithms, 2) rules, 3) money for further development (be it to the developers, hosting web/ftp/etc, paying Justin/Craig/etc and letting them continue working on the OS version, etc.) Will they do any of it? Remains to be seen. The biggest sticking point, IMHO, isn't 1 or 2 but 3, and specifically the "continue working on the OS version" part. Most companies that I've been at have a clause in the employment agreement that basically says "anything you think or do is our property", and therefore anything that gets thought of as an idea becomes NAI IP, and is unlikely to make it back into the OS version. However, Justin/Craig/etc are pretty smart folks I've seen, so if working on the OS code (or any OS code for that matter) is important to them, I'm sure they've already worked this out. At the moment, I'm less concerned about "will SA continue" as I am about getting 2.50 out. But that's another discussion. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: > No manual is ever necessary. May I politely interject here: BULLSHIT. That's the biggest Apple lie of all! (Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the intuitiveness of interfaces.)
msg11748/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
