Thanks for the detailed replies guys, certainly heavy thinking. If only this licensing stuff was as fun as programming, eh? We'd all be young Bills...
Back to the point:
Quote:
What is to stop people just writing whatever extensions they like to your system with or without your permission. That is what happens with commercial operating systems after all. It's what happens with Linux for that matter.
Yes, that would be allowed under the GPL. The point is I own the copyright, so the derived work will be GPL forever.
Quote:
You also might be trying to put a leg cast on a simple cut and scape. A better way (if possible) might be to enter the contributor into a agreement to allow you to have certain rights to their submissions having the effects of: still leaving them as copyright holders, allowing you exclusive usage of their contribution, and allowing your self to enter into some terms that force you to give them attribution when their work is used inside your project.
That's probably the best idea, the problem is I'd need to draw up this license before accepting contributions from anyone. I wouldn't expect (or accept) huge contributions Linux-style, what I'm talking about is minor bug fixes. Surely a bug fix amending a few lines of source doesn't warrant royalty payments?
When, and if, I decide to license my kernel commercially, I'd certainly seek proper legal advice. That's not something I can afford right now though!
Thanks,
Senaus
_________________
Code:
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M/MU d- s:- a--- C++++ UL P L++ E--- W+++ N+ w++ M- V+ PS+ Y+ PE- PGP t-- 5- X R- tv b DI-- D+ G e h! r++ y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------