http://www.businessinsider.com/red-hat-ceo-go-ahead-copy-our-software-2013-8 Title says is all. Nice to know RH understands and accepts the relationship between CentOS and RHEL. Although it is complex. After all, if too many choose CentOS, there may no longer be a CentOS. However, I don't think I would refer to CentOS as a "parasite" as the author Matt Asay does. More appropriate to call it symbiotic. Is the relationship a 50/50 affair? Not sure. Complicating matters even more is Oracle Unmistakable Linux.
m.roth at 5-cent.us
2013-Aug-15 20:20 UTC
[CentOS] Red Hat CEO: Go Ahead, Copy Our Software
Robert Arkiletian wrote:> http://www.businessinsider.com/red-hat-ceo-go-ahead-copy-our-software-2013-8 > > Title says is all. Nice to know RH understands and accepts the > relationship between CentOS and RHEL. > > Although it is complex. After all, if too many choose CentOS, there > may no longer be a CentOS. However, I don't think I would refer to > CentOS as a "parasite" as the author Matt Asay does. More appropriate > to call it symbiotic. > > Is the relationship a 50/50 affair? Not sure. > > Complicating matters even more is Oracle Unmistakable Linux.Yeah, and the author *really* doesn't understand, and didn't bother to try, to do their research. Excerpt: Arguably one critical area that CentOS hasn't helped Red Hat is with developers. While developers want the latest and greatest technology, Red Hat's bread-and-butter audience over the years has been operations departments, which want stable and predictable software. (Read: boring.) CentOS, by cloning RHEL's slow-and-steady approach to Linux development, is ill-suited to attracting developers. --- end excerpt --- As I said.... mark
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:> >> How about the real history, where Red Hat took a bunch of software >> developed by others, published the barely-working stuff with horrible >> bugs (read the changelogs if you disagree....), then accepted >> contributed debugging, fixes and improvements from the users until it >> was good enough to charge for, then they cut off access even to the >> people who had helped make it usable. And CentOS helps fix that >> problem > > so what > > what about live and let live?What about bait and switch?> remove anything delevoped by RH paied employes in the last 10 years > from the ecosystem and you stay here naked and helpless and most > other distributions too in case of modern and rock solid softwareRemove the stuff contributed by others and what would still work at all?> GCC and the kernel are only two but importnat pieces where > Redhat invested a lot of time and money over the years > > so whats your problem?I guess I'd rather have seen the contributed work go to a distribution that didn't develop a community with a free version and then after accepting their work, take the free version away. CentOS still gives the same effect, so why didn't they just continue to allow redistribution? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:> > are you really that dumb? > "take the free version away" -> come on and explain how this works for GPL softwareExactly, explain where the GPL distinguishes between what restrictions you can add to binaries vs source components.> Redhat *does not* sell the software and code > they sell the service and support contractsSo, what about redistribution of copies?> why are you not simply use a operating system without code from Redhat and shut up? > Windows and Apple OSX as example would free you from Redhat and CentOS > come on, move forward if you are pissed of Redhat for no reason!I could use debian, but then I'd have to learn to type apt-get instead of rpm. I'd prefer to continue using the commands that Red Hat baited us with. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:> >> So, what about redistribution of copies? > > learn the difference between trademarks and software licencesSo, if you have a license that says "the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License," and " You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", it really means that you can add something that adds restrictions.>> I could use debian, but then I'd have to learn to type apt-get instead >> of rpm. I'd prefer to continue using the commands that Red Hat >> baited us with > > so learn it or shut up with your Redhat hate for no reasonI have my reason. You don't have to like it. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net>wrote:> > > Am 16.08.2013 14:07, schrieb Andrew Wyatt: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Giles Coochey <giles at coochey.net> > wrote: > >>> While I agree that CentOS will always have support while it is > community > >> driven, and has an upstream - without RedHat, no Centos... the truth of > the > >> matter (when it comes to $$$): > >> > > > > It wouldn't be impossible to continue CentOS without RedHat, the > community > > would be capable of pushing it forward. That's not to say that RedHat > > isn't doing a great job, but if they were to stop the CentOS project > could > > and probably would go on IMHO. > > it would be impossible > > rebuild mostly srpms and do the development are completly different worlds > it would be a *complete* different distribution, the current userbase > is not interested in community developed distribution, if they would > than the would not use CentOS - period > >RedHat Linux is largely a community distribution, it is a collection of upstream community sources with RedHat developers and engineers assigned as package maintainers. Their product is support and not software. I think we all know that rebuilding SRPMS and development are different worlds but that doesn't mean that the community wouldn't come together to continue moving it forward. I know I'd try to help... The biggest challenge would be in developing the next major iteration but for a product already deep into its cycle like CentOS 6 it wouldn't be very difficult at all. It may shed a number of CentOS users on the front end, but a large number of them would come back.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:> >>> learn the difference between trademarks and software licences >> >> So, if you have a license that says "the distribution of the whole >> must be on the terms of this License," and " You may not impose any >> further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted >> herein", it really means that you can add something that adds >> restrictions. > > are you really that stupid? > > do you think the CentOS packages are falling from heaven? > no, they are built from the RHEL srpmsSo which section of the GPL is it that exempts binaries from being considered derived works with the same requiremnets?> >>>> I could use debian, but then I'd have to learn to type apt-get instead >>>> of rpm. I'd prefer to continue using the commands that Red Hat >>>> baited us with >>> >>> so learn it or shut up with your Redhat hate for no reason >> >> I have my reason. You don't have to like it > > so be man enough and do not use it instead whine like a teen girlBreaking compatibility would go against everything I like about Linux and it's not like the alternatives are perfect either. But regardless of how much you care about my opinion, can you seriously say that you like the fact that the community of free users that helped take the Red Hat product from something that barely worked up to the fairly robust and usable 7.x version has been split into a set that favors stability using CentOS where there is really no way to contribute improvements and the wild and crazy fedora set that doesn't care about stability or maintaining compatible interfaces across versions. With the fedora set driving new development... -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On 08/15/2013 03:12 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:> http://www.businessinsider.com/red-hat-ceo-go-ahead-copy-our-software-2013-8 > > Title says is all. Nice to know RH understands and accepts the > relationship between CentOS and RHEL.C > > Although it is complex. After all, if too many choose CentOS, there > may no longer be a CentOS. However, I don't think I would refer to > CentOS as a "parasite" as the author Matt Asay does. More appropriate > to call it symbiotic. > > Is the relationship a 50/50 affair? Not sure. > > Complicating matters even more is Oracle Unmistakable Linux.I think that Red Hat understands the benefit that they get from CentOS, as expressed by Mr, Whitehurst's statement: "CentOS is one of the reasons that the RHEL ecosystem is the default. It helps to give us an ubiquity that RHEL might otherwise not have if we forced everyone to pay to use Linux. So, in a micro sense we lose some revenue, but in a broader sense, CentOS plays a very valuable role in helping to make Red Hat the de facto Linux." Its obvious the benefit that CentOS gets from Red Hat (without those sources, publicly released, CentOS would be extremely hard ... almost impossible). SUSE does not release their enterprise sources and there is no SLES clone because of it. We do want people to use CentOS for everything they feel comfortable using it for (obviously), but we also would recommend that people use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for things where they want a service level agreements or the specific certifications (Like Common Criteria EAL, etc.) that Red Hat has spent tons of money and effort to get. We would also recommend the Red Hat training and certification program for people who want to get career training that is applicable to CentOS. The bottom line ... Robert is correct, the relationship is certainly symbiotic and not parasitic. Red Hat (the company) needs to make money, and software that is built on the same code base is available for free as well. It is a win-win ... which is exactly what the GPL provides for. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20130816/2aa73156/attachment-0002.sig>
Snip...> > The bottom line ... Robert is correct, the relationship is certainly > symbiotic and not parasitic. Red Hat (the company) needs to make money, > and software that is built on the same code base is available for free > as well. It is a win-win ... which is exactly what the GPL provides for. > > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > +1
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:>>> >> So which section of the GPL is it that exempts binaries from being >> considered derived works with the same requiremnets? > > OK you are really that stupid > > the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at allExactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution and that additional restrictions cannot be added. If you want to refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits it. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:> > > The bottom line ... Robert is correct, the relationship is certainly > symbiotic and not parasitic. Red Hat (the company) needs to make money, > and software that is built on the same code base is available for free > as well. It is a win-win ... which is exactly what the GPL provides for.Red Hat is clearly aware that they would never have become a popular distribution in the first place without their own freely redistributable release. My question is why they now think it is better to not provide that directly - and get the brand recognition, community input, and potential support customers using the exact code as they will as paying customers. Why push them to work-alikes with different branding where many users won't even understand the relationship, with the obvious danger that another brand may compete for paid support? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:> On 08/15/2013 03:12 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote: > > > http://www.businessinsider.com/red-hat-ceo-go-ahead-copy-our-software-2013-8 > > > > Title says is all. Nice to know RH understands and accepts the > > relationship between CentOS and RHEL.C > > > > Although it is complex. After all, if too many choose CentOS, there > > may no longer be a CentOS. However, I don't think I would refer to > > CentOS as a "parasite" as the author Matt Asay does. More appropriate > > to call it symbiotic. > > > > Is the relationship a 50/50 affair? Not sure. > > > > Complicating matters even more is Oracle Unmistakable Linux. > > I think that Red Hat understands the benefit that they get from CentOS, > as expressed by Mr, Whitehurst's statement: > > "CentOS is one of the reasons that the RHEL ecosystem is the default. It > helps to give us an ubiquity that RHEL might otherwise not have if we > forced everyone to pay to use Linux. So, in a micro sense we lose some > revenue, but in a broader sense, CentOS plays a very valuable role in > helping to make Red Hat the de facto Linux." > >Spot on. "They understand the symbiotic relationship." Thank you for quoting that, Johnny.> Its obvious the benefit that CentOS gets from Red Hat (without those > sources, publicly released, CentOS would be extremely hard ... almost > impossible). SUSE does not release their enterprise sources and there > is no SLES clone because of it. > > We do want people to use CentOS for everything they feel comfortable > using it for (obviously), but we also would recommend that people use > Red Hat Enterprise Linux for things where they want a service level > agreements or the specific certifications (Like Common Criteria EAL, > etc.) that Red Hat has spent tons of money and effort to get. We would > also recommend the Red Hat training and certification program for people > who want to get career training that is applicable to CentOS. > > The bottom line ... Robert is correct, the relationship is certainly > symbiotic and not parasitic. Red Hat (the company) needs to make money, >If anything the journalist deserves the heat and criticism for trying to make clones look/sound bad. After all, bad news sells better than good news, right? [No need to answer.]> and software that is built on the same code base is available for free > as well. It is a win-win ... which is exactly what the GPL provides for. >I've long had a personal lab based on Fedora, Debian, and CentOS (though my install base has other creatures as well). If I didn't have CentOS, I might run Fedora (it's not too bad on stability for non-critical applications) -- BUT I'd have more of a Debian install base if CentOS wasn't around. *Everyone* that's chimed in has valid points, but they aren't worth arguing about. Probably the only way to make change (if necessary) is for RH employees to back any proposals for change. As Dave pointed out there have been some oddities in what is released (in availability and even the quickness of some updates), but overall I don't think it's anything to get upset about. I suppose that's because I know I have options ... kinda goes along with OpenOffice vs LibreOffice, etc. Look at the bright side! [We have CentOS, we have options.] Have a great weekend everyone. -- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 //
On 08/16/2013 11:06 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:> Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries > cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can > only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution > and that additional restrictions cannot be added. If you want to > refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits it.Les, binaries aren't derived works. They're machine-generated translations. A derived work would be a change in the source code; binaries are direct machine-readable translations of unmodified source code. And the GPL covers just the programs on the distribution that are, well, covered by the GPL at the source level. Mere aggregation doesn't mean the whole iso is under the GPL, only the binaries that are compiled from GPL source are. The copyright for the collection may prohibit distribution of the collection (in its aggregated form), but you might be able to distribute those individual binaries that are built from GPL sources; but you would violate your subscription agreement (a separate legal agreement and not part of the copyright license) if you did so. After all, the licensor of the GPL-covered program is in many cases not Red Hat; the subscription agreement is a contract with Red Hat and Red Hat alone. The GPL is all about source code availability, not binary availability. To wit, see this section in the GPL FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MustSourceBuildToMatchExactHashOfBinary And even https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ExportWarranties applies, as ITAR would represent a 'restriction' on distribution, no? But again the GPL coverage doesn't extend to the aggregation in ISO form, only to the individual programs on the ISO. Nothing in the GPL says that if you distribute the source to the public you must distribute binaries to the public; all it says is that if you distribute binaries you must distribute or include a written offer to distribute the source to the people to whom you have distributed binaries. This is how SuSE (to use Johnny's example cross-thread) gets away with not having public distribution of the sources for SLES (if you find the publicly available sources for SLES with updates please let me know, and OpenSuSE is not the same thing).
On 08/16/2013 01:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:> Really? Are none of the trademark-restricted additions packaged into > GPLed items? Or is redistributing the trademark OK as long as nothing > is changed? If you could obtain a copy and didn't care about RNH, > could you ship straight RH binaries instead of rebuilding?You're free to grep through the license fields in the RPM database to find out, for those packages which contain trademarks. I'm not going to do it for you. If you only wanted a single shot at redistribution, and you didn't care about RHN, then you still can only redistribute binaries that have licenses that specifically permit binary redistribution, and only individual packages at that, since the ISO, as a collection, is a separate work (it's an 'aggregation of works' (an anthology, if you will)) for copyright purposes and could be under a completely different distribution-not-allowed license. There are some licenses out there that could be argued to only cover the source and not the binary translation (GPL does specifically cover the object code and executable forms, IIRC).
On 08/16/2013 01:45 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:> What about permitting redistribution? And if losing your RHN support > as a consequence isn't a restriction that the "You may not impose any > further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted > herein." covers, then what kind of restriction could that clause > possibly mean?https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary While it's not been tested in a court of law, and I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that if I were to redistribute a Red Hat binary RPM of a GPL package that I might not have anything to worry about. But I reserve the right to be wrong, and this is not legal advice, and I'm not willing to be a test case, either. However, again, the aggregate work of the installable ISO is not under the GPL, and so you would want to check with your own counsel as to the advisability of redistributing the installable ISO. As the GPL states clearly: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. "
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:> >> Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries >> cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can >> only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution >> and that additional restrictions cannot be added > > *which restrictions from your fantasy are you talking about?*I'm talking about the consequences Red Hat applies if you were to exercise the right that the GPL says you have to redistribute copies. If the threat of such consequences aren't a restriction, what would be? I realize that Red Hat does, in fact do more than required in other areas so this is just a philosophical point, but I don't see how their treatment of binaries meshes with the letter of the GPL. I also realize that since CentOS and other derivative distros rely on the 'more than required' parts (non-GPL'd parts, source in easily reusable form, etc.), it could all go away on a whim, just like the freely redistributable binaries did, so even if you are happy with today's scenario, there's no reason to expect it to last. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:> >>> redistribution of SOURCE. have you READ the GPL ? >> >> Please quote the section that you think exempts binaries > > *THE WHOLE GPL TALKS ABOUT SOURCE CODE DAMNED* > *THE WHOLE GPL TALKS ABOUT SOURCE CODE DAMNED* > *THE WHOLE GPL TALKS ABOUT SOURCE CODE DAMNED*Sorry, but that quote does not appear in any copy of the GPL that I can find. And it's not true, either. Everything it says is about 'works as a whole' and anything that can be considered a copy or derivative work under copyright law. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:> >> Sorry, but that quote does not appear in any copy of the GPL that I >> can find. And it's not true, either. Everything it says is about >> 'works as a whole' and anything that can be considered a copy or >> derivative work under copyright law > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > > and now *show me* the word *binary* or *binaries* in any paragraphAnd that is exactly the point. They are not considered differently in terms of restrictions you can apply or adding to 'works as a whole' in copyright terms. If the distribution of any part of a work is only permitted by the GPL and you don't follow the GPL terms (say, by adding restrictions of your own), you would not be permitted to distribute at all. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:> > wow - everybody but you understands the GPLApparently not...> GPL == SOURCECODENo. It applies to everything copied/derived from/translated from (etc.) anything where any part is covered by GPL. Including binaries.> GPL == COPYRIGHTYes, and without it, nothing gives you the right to distribute programs where any part is covered.> YOU FOOL RHEL IS NOT "THE WORK AS WHOLE" AND NOT UNDER GPL-ONLYYes, I am only talking about the components where copyright law would consider it a copy or derivative of GPL code. And I didn't say otherwise.> nice that you removed all of my quotes about *source code* in the GPLThey are irrelevant to the discussion of how binaries are equally covered by the 'no additional restrictions' section. The only place where source is different is that if you distribute binaries you are required to also provide matching sources. There is no mention of any exceptions to the requirement to permit redistribution for any covered work in any form. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On 08/16/2013 03:12 PM, Andrew Wyatt wrote:> RedHat's trademarks are the only reason why you can't take the RedHat ISO > and distribute it to whomever you want.Not exactly. The aggregate collection, just because it contains GPL-licensed software, is not necessarily under the GPL as a whole, and the ISO itself is copyrighted. Further, out of the 2108 packages I have installed on one of my RHEL6 systems, 678 of them are not GPL-covered. And then there's: [root at www ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.4 (Santiago) [root at www ~]# rpm -q --queryformat "%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{LICENSE}\n" redhat-logos redhat-logos-60.0.14-1.el6 Copyright 1999-2010 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved. [root at www ~]# In other words, if you distribute an ISO, and that ISO contains the source code or binary code of redhat-logos, that's a copyright violation as no one but the copyright owner, Red Hat, Inc., has the right to distribute it. So you can't distribute that ISO due to both a copyright violation and a trademark violation. Now, GPL does specifically cover binaries; that's the whole of section 2. The last paragraph of section 2 I've already quoted, and that makes clear that RHEL the distribution, which is an aggregation of programs, some covered by GPL, some not, is not all covered by GPL just because it includes some GPL-covered programs. The case of redistributing an ISO containing the binary or source RPM of redhat-logos is clear; it's not freely redistributable. The cases of GPL-covered binary RPM's being redistributed has not been tested in court to the best of my knowledge. And I don't plan to become the test case. Of course, I am not a lawyer, and I reserve the right to be wrong. But it's clear that Red Hat has cleared their policies, contracts, licenses, and agreements with their own lawyers, and those lawyers know a great deal more about that than any of us (with at least the one notable exception of Russ) does. One of those lawyers is now the primary editor on groklaw.net...... I met him (Mark W.) in Asheville, and he's a nice guy, and he really is the expert on these things.
oracle is the bad!! On Aug 15, 2013 11:12 PM, "Robert Arkiletian" <robark at gmail.com> wrote:> > http://www.businessinsider.com/red-hat-ceo-go-ahead-copy-our-software-2013-8 > > Title says is all. Nice to know RH understands and accepts the > relationship between CentOS and RHEL. > > Although it is complex. After all, if too many choose CentOS, there > may no longer be a CentOS. However, I don't think I would refer to > CentOS as a "parasite" as the author Matt Asay does. More appropriate > to call it symbiotic. > > Is the relationship a 50/50 affair? Not sure. > > Complicating matters even more is Oracle Unmistakable Linux. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
On 08/16/2013 10:53 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:> SUSE does not release their enterprise sources and there > is no SLES clone because of it.I can't believe I never thought about it (to wonder why there wasn't any SLES clone)... Shouldn't they release the source for the GPL packages? I thought there was no way around it (and therefore that's why Red Hat had to do it). -- Jorge
On Fri, August 16, 2013 11:06, Les Mikesell wrote:> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Reindl Harald > <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote: >>>> >>> So which section of the GPL is it that exempts binaries from being >>> considered derived works with the same requiremnets?>> >> the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all > > Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries > cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can > only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution > and that additional restrictions cannot be added. If you want to > refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits > it. >Which, if true, is to say that one may not rebuild GPL source on systems whose architecture and/or cpu instruction set are propriety. Binaries are not open by definition. They are built for one specific environment by one specific compiler and one or both both of those may not be covered by a GPL of some sort. How then can such a binary be considered a derived work under the GPL? The GPLs that I have read are concerned with the source and only the source. From that source you may build the software without consideration of the nature of the build tools and therefore the results (binaries) I believe are not, and meaningfully cannot be, covered by the GPL. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3
Александр Кириллов
2013-Aug-17 19:28 UTC
[CentOS] Red Hat CEO: Go Ahead, Copy Our Software
> where Canonical even deserves the right to re-use your code for > non-open development - are you kidding? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement#CanonicalThanks for the link.