Submitting a new license or using the current ones

[jcowan at reutershealth.com]

Alex Rousskov scripsit:

> Whether a serious competitor will arise using your LGPLed sources is
> most likely unrelated to the licensing issue. Since you are going to
> release the sources of your software (and allow modification?), 

"Release" in the sense that they will provide those sources to paying
(subscribing) customers only, who are forbidden to pass them along.

> seems to me that a competitor would have to do much more to survive
> the competition than simply apply an OSI-approved license to your old
> sources... 

An Apache-style effort, a consortium of the customers, would probably be
quite successful.  This is all assuming that this isn't just beating the air,
that there actually is a commercial demand for the VM.

-- 
John Cowan                                <jcowan at reutershealth.com>     
http://www.reutershealth.com              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Yakka foob mog.  Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork.  Chumble spuzz.
    -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3