<span class="q">On 8/26/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Patrick R. Michaud</b> <<a href="mailto:pmichaud@pobox.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">pmichaud@pobox.com</a>> wrote:
</span><div><div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"></blockquote></div><div><span class="q">
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 12:08:09AM +0200, Carlo Strozzi wrote:<br></span></div><div>...<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"></blockquote>
</div><div><span class="q">> I think that the licensing change issue arises from
<br>> the fact that some corporate users may want to be able to re-distribute<br>> PmWiki, or parts of it, together with proprietary stuff of their own.<br><br>No, this isn't the reason for the additional license, and the
<br>license I'm adding doesn't permit redistribution. It really is<br>like a traditional EULA. For the foreseeable future, the only<br>license that will allow redistribution of PmWiki is going to<br>be the GPL.<br></span>
</div><div>......
</div>I have to say it's been most entertaining to watch this thread develop over the last couple of days with the expected astonishment at the behaviour of PHBs together with "why would anyone have a policy that forces them to pay for something they can get for free?"
<br><br>The issue for PHBs and the more so for the more intelligent of their colleagues goes back to a fundamental point of contract law. There are a few things that must be present in order to establish a contract that is legally binding on all parties to it. One of these is "considerations" Briefly this means that a binding contract must have both something tangible that passes between vendor and purchaser AND ALSO something tangible that PASSES BETWEEN PURCHASER AND VENDOR. The adoption of a GPL licensed software product by a corporation fails to create a contractual relationship because it fails to pass a consideration from the purchaser to the vendor. Therefore if all turns to custard the corporation has no-one they can sue because they haven't established a binding contract.
<br><br>If you've travelled in such circles it's no surprise that when you observe the policy that says all contracts and agreements must be scrutinised by the corporate legal department you getback a memo telling you to go find a way of forming a proper contract or else you can forget about the proposed deal. PM is proposing in his new licence option to get these guy's off the hook which is great and deserves our, the PmWiki Community's, support. I suggest we just let him get on with it so he can devote his time to further developing the product rather than arguing with us lot.
</div><div><span class="q" id="q_10d48611829f7d24_6"><br>-- <br>Mike Moller<br>Lallybroch Alpacas<br>New Zealand<br><a href="http://www.lallybroch.co.nz" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
www.lallybroch.co.nz</a>
</span></div><br>