<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Keeping up with the BlogJones&#8230;.. mid-April &#8216;08</title>
	<link>http://blog.broadbandmechanics.com/2008/04/keeping-up-with-the-blogjones-mid-april-08</link>
	<description>Digital Lifestyle Aggregation - helping to establish open source infrastructure</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Linksvayer</title>
		<link>http://blog.broadbandmechanics.com/2008/04/keeping-up-with-the-blogjones-mid-april-08#comment-245410</link>
		<author>Mike Linksvayer</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:21:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.broadbandmechanics.com/2008/04/keeping-up-with-the-blogjones-mid-april-08#comment-245410</guid>
		<description>There are lots of reasons to not use the GPL, and some of them are reasons to not use any open source license, but the one you give -- "we can’t build a system for someone who then wants to sell it again - without my customer having to give back that code to teh community" -- is not one if in fact you take no contributions, because if you're the only copyright holder, you can license to your customer under different terms. Of course if you use a non-copyleft license (eg BSD, MIT, or Apache), this is never an issue.

NOT trying to convince you to release under an open source license, just setting the nuance straight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are lots of reasons to not use the GPL, and some of them are reasons to not use any open source license, but the one you give &#8212; &#8220;we can’t build a system for someone who then wants to sell it again - without my customer having to give back that code to teh community&#8221; &#8212; is not one if in fact you take no contributions, because if you&#8217;re the only copyright holder, you can license to your customer under different terms. Of course if you use a non-copyleft license (eg BSD, MIT, or Apache), this is never an issue.</p>
<p>NOT trying to convince you to release under an open source license, just setting the nuance straight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
