OT: non-commercial open source license?

[Tony Abou-Assaleh]

> > and say this is different to the original
> > version  if you are going to relase your own version,
>
> No.  I don't think so.  It is polite to rename it or indicate that it is
> different, though.

Names of products are typically covered by the trademark laws, rather than
the copyright laws.

Hypothetical examples:

I make an app, call it foobar, and release it under GPL. You take my app,
change it, and release under the same name. What can I do about it? Pretty
much nothing. I don't have the money to sue you, my business is not based
on foobar, and you don't have much money that I can get from you. In this
example, if I sue you, I end up losing money on costs.

If you take Ubuntu Linux, change it, and release it under the same name,
Canonical Inc, the trade mark holder of Ubuntu, could sue you. If you're
poor, they may also lose money on costs that they won't recover from you.
But since Ubuntu is the basis of Canonical's Linux, it is important for
them to protect the name.

I hope the above example are sufficiently accurate to be useful :O)

Cheers,

TAA

-----------------------------------------------------
Tony Abou-Assaleh
Lecturer, Computer Science Department
Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada, L2S 3A1
Office: MC J215
Tel:    +1(905)688-5550 ext. 5243
Fax:    +1(905)688-3255
Email:  taa-HInyCGIudOg at public.gmane.org
WWW:    http://www.cosc.brocku.ca/~taa/
----------------------[THE END]----------------------
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml