ImageDisk project is canceled

Over the past few years, a friend of mine wrote an HTTP server [1] in C++, intended mainly for use in embedded systems, where something like Apache would be too large or too difficult to use. When he was comfortable enough with the code, he released it under the GPL license, but also provided an alternative license for pure commercial use [2]. Over time, be became aware that multiple companies in China were downloading his webserver and embedding the software into commerical products. Since these companies did not negotiate an alternative license to the GPL, they were then bound to the GPL license and my friend would have been within his rights to buy a unit and demand the source code. His chances of actually *getting* said source code were nil. The Chinese companies don't care and it would have been prohibitively expensive for him to sue. Since his intent was to make money off the codebase (and he spent a few years working on the software [3]---following the HTTP spec [4] isn't easy and there are some rather interesting corner cases). So what did he do? The next release was no longer under the GPL. You want the code, you have to buy it [5]. It was thus said that the Great der Mouse once stated: Some interesting stuff there, but without a clear license what can I do with the code? For me, he should not be criticized for making his source code unavailable. I've seen freeware that came as binary only, no source code. Shareware too (in fact, I've rarely seen shareware come with source code). By the same token, if he wants to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day and die of lung cancer, more power to him (not that I want him to, just making a point). Dave's a grown-up, and if he makes a bad choice, well ... that's his decision (as long as it doesn't negatively impact others). One more story. A while back for a project I had in mind (which I didn't do for other reasons) I took a look at existing blogging software, the most popular of which (at the time) was Moveable Type. Written in Perl, but the license wasn't an open license at all. Couldn't copy it. Couldn't transfer it (licensing wise). Major restrictions on the number of authors and blogs a single instance could do. Couldn't redistribute. Couldn't really modify. But you got the source code! I rejected that codebase as soon as I finished reading the licensing. Didn't bitch to Mena or Ben Trott though. They wrote the code. They licensed it as they saw fit. I just deleted my copy and went on. -spc (Oh, by the way, I have this GREAT text based digital clock program, uses a large font so one can view it from across the room ... anyone interested?) [1] http://www.gladesoft.com/products/seminole/index.shtml [2] I'm told, by my friend, that due to the way embedded systems are typically constructed (from a software point of view) that the GPL licensed code practically never used if at all possible. Since his webserver (which could be compiled for standalone use) was meant to be used in embedded systems (and it was quite easy to embed into larger programs), he was willing to offer the code under a different license to those companies so interested. The other programmers that helped him in this (myself, one other, and a few people that provided a few patches for various real time operating systems) were okay with this. [3] With some help. I mainly helped with interpreting the HTTP spec [4] but did write a bit of code (MD5 hash, some date-manipulation routines, and making sure his code could understand HTTP/0.9 requests). [4] HTTP/1.1 - RFC-2616 Authentication for HTTP/1.1 - RFC-2617 [5] Not that I have a problem with him doing this---not only did he fund the development himself, but I did get paid for my work, along with the other developer that helped him.