Forum OpenACS Q&A: Response to building new Track&Field web/database application

Actually, my understanding was that the definition of a 'derivative' work (i.e. a work that is a superset of OACS and new development) was one that is either statically or dynamically linked. This implies to me that packages that make use of APIs etc.. are technically linked.

Does anyone else think that the GNU Library license might be more appropriate for OACS?

I think the better solution overall is to adopt a different business model. As I understand it even if code falls under the GPL there is no requirement for you to make it available to anyone and everyone, you a merely obliged to deliver source code when you deliver binaries. If you client was concerned about OS i.e. didn't want their code to be visible to the world for commercially sensitive reasons, then a simple accompanying Non Disclose Agreement can solve the problem, effectively limiting the disclose to other parties, but not breaking the GPL.

We've completely circumvented any issues about open source by being a business based on a services model rather than the traditional product model. Therefore, technically we never charge for software and don't sell code. We charge for the services we provide around deliver of that software.

Ok, so you may say that we're missing an opportunity for product revenue, but realistically without this community and OS in general we wouldn't have a product to offer anyway... QED.

We're currently putting together a commercial methodology for the use of open source, and if anyone has anything useful to send me on that topic please do. Something thats been missing in OS world, and I think that would be a beneficial step.

As far as I can see the only issue with the GPL (in particular) is that a customer maybe uncomfortable with their code being publicly visible for a number of reasons.. perhaps not least of which is not wishing their competitiors to get hold of it. Again the NDA appraoch above, sidlines this issue.

Cheers
Simon