Should one give up his Copyrights?
-
Hi, I'd like to know what CodeProject people think about this... I have been contacted by one software vendor regarding of one of my products, which I released to public some time ago. The product is licensed for free commercial and non-commercial use. I have also made the source code available while retained my copyrights on it. The company (who contacted me) expressed interest in my product and asked about the product road-map. Then in the next email they informed me that they want to use my software but have concerns about dealing with products being developed by small companies or individuals. Thus they suggested that I entered in the contract with them. According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests". I am going to reject the proposal, it's not a question. But I am just curious, is this normal? Why is it OK to buy a commercial software - without any promise of the future development - without a source code (even "read-only") - usually without any guaranteed support after a year - without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source code And why is it not OK to apply the same criteria to the opened source software (even if it is not GPL licensed)? As part of my product maintenance I pay for the Web hosting and the domain registration. I spend great deal of time for supporting my users and I have been many times complimented for this. I am appreciating but not expecting donations. I spend my money and free time simply because of "my love to art". It is just happens that my full time occupation and the hobby are the same thing. So why when I am sharing something useful am I also expected to provide my "account PIN number"? Am I being paranoiac?
-
Hi, I'd like to know what CodeProject people think about this... I have been contacted by one software vendor regarding of one of my products, which I released to public some time ago. The product is licensed for free commercial and non-commercial use. I have also made the source code available while retained my copyrights on it. The company (who contacted me) expressed interest in my product and asked about the product road-map. Then in the next email they informed me that they want to use my software but have concerns about dealing with products being developed by small companies or individuals. Thus they suggested that I entered in the contract with them. According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests". I am going to reject the proposal, it's not a question. But I am just curious, is this normal? Why is it OK to buy a commercial software - without any promise of the future development - without a source code (even "read-only") - usually without any guaranteed support after a year - without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source code And why is it not OK to apply the same criteria to the opened source software (even if it is not GPL licensed)? As part of my product maintenance I pay for the Web hosting and the domain registration. I spend great deal of time for supporting my users and I have been many times complimented for this. I am appreciating but not expecting donations. I spend my money and free time simply because of "my love to art". It is just happens that my full time occupation and the hobby are the same thing. So why when I am sharing something useful am I also expected to provide my "account PIN number"? Am I being paranoiac?
Oleg Shilo wrote:
According this contract they will get the rights
You can offer them non-exclusive license to use your source code in any way they like (except for things like creating competing products or reselling the license) for a certain price you see fit + yearly renewable support contract at a price. Search SO, sorry Chris :), you can find some really good answers there about the subject.
-
Hi, I'd like to know what CodeProject people think about this... I have been contacted by one software vendor regarding of one of my products, which I released to public some time ago. The product is licensed for free commercial and non-commercial use. I have also made the source code available while retained my copyrights on it. The company (who contacted me) expressed interest in my product and asked about the product road-map. Then in the next email they informed me that they want to use my software but have concerns about dealing with products being developed by small companies or individuals. Thus they suggested that I entered in the contract with them. According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests". I am going to reject the proposal, it's not a question. But I am just curious, is this normal? Why is it OK to buy a commercial software - without any promise of the future development - without a source code (even "read-only") - usually without any guaranteed support after a year - without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source code And why is it not OK to apply the same criteria to the opened source software (even if it is not GPL licensed)? As part of my product maintenance I pay for the Web hosting and the domain registration. I spend great deal of time for supporting my users and I have been many times complimented for this. I am appreciating but not expecting donations. I spend my money and free time simply because of "my love to art". It is just happens that my full time occupation and the hobby are the same thing. So why when I am sharing something useful am I also expected to provide my "account PIN number"? Am I being paranoiac?
Oleg Shilo wrote:
Am I being paranoiac?
No, I don't think so. It does sound like they want to get the exclusive rights to your software if you stop talking to them for ay reason. If the software source is already out there, then they have no problem that I can see, and a contract giving them any rights at all should be unnecessary.
Oleg Shilo wrote:
Why is it OK to buy a commercial software
- without any promise of the future development
- without a source code (even "read-only")
- usually without any guaranteed support after a year
- without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source codeBecause Software License Agreements are written by Satan, and nobody reads them.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
-
Hi, I'd like to know what CodeProject people think about this... I have been contacted by one software vendor regarding of one of my products, which I released to public some time ago. The product is licensed for free commercial and non-commercial use. I have also made the source code available while retained my copyrights on it. The company (who contacted me) expressed interest in my product and asked about the product road-map. Then in the next email they informed me that they want to use my software but have concerns about dealing with products being developed by small companies or individuals. Thus they suggested that I entered in the contract with them. According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests". I am going to reject the proposal, it's not a question. But I am just curious, is this normal? Why is it OK to buy a commercial software - without any promise of the future development - without a source code (even "read-only") - usually without any guaranteed support after a year - without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source code And why is it not OK to apply the same criteria to the opened source software (even if it is not GPL licensed)? As part of my product maintenance I pay for the Web hosting and the domain registration. I spend great deal of time for supporting my users and I have been many times complimented for this. I am appreciating but not expecting donations. I spend my money and free time simply because of "my love to art". It is just happens that my full time occupation and the hobby are the same thing. So why when I am sharing something useful am I also expected to provide my "account PIN number"? Am I being paranoiac?
I would say you have been generous enough. They get it for free, they get the source code and, at least for the time being, they even get your support. The rest is their problem. Even if you don't continue to work on it they still can keep going on their own. What exactly would you get from their contract? They want you to keep working on your project. For free of course. What does 'stop responding to their requests' mean? What will those requests be like? Bug reports and normal support? Or do they want to tell you what they want to have next and when you have to deliver it? For free, of course. You are right. Tell them to take it or leave it, but it is and stays your property. A special license may eliminate risks (on both sides) without going as far as to giving them all rights. As it is, it sounds very much like they want to run your show without paying anything and disowning you when you don't want to play along anymore.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
Hi, I'd like to know what CodeProject people think about this... I have been contacted by one software vendor regarding of one of my products, which I released to public some time ago. The product is licensed for free commercial and non-commercial use. I have also made the source code available while retained my copyrights on it. The company (who contacted me) expressed interest in my product and asked about the product road-map. Then in the next email they informed me that they want to use my software but have concerns about dealing with products being developed by small companies or individuals. Thus they suggested that I entered in the contract with them. According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests". I am going to reject the proposal, it's not a question. But I am just curious, is this normal? Why is it OK to buy a commercial software - without any promise of the future development - without a source code (even "read-only") - usually without any guaranteed support after a year - without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source code And why is it not OK to apply the same criteria to the opened source software (even if it is not GPL licensed)? As part of my product maintenance I pay for the Web hosting and the domain registration. I spend great deal of time for supporting my users and I have been many times complimented for this. I am appreciating but not expecting donations. I spend my money and free time simply because of "my love to art". It is just happens that my full time occupation and the hobby are the same thing. So why when I am sharing something useful am I also expected to provide my "account PIN number"? Am I being paranoiac?
There are many cases where a company can get a snapshot of the code put into escrow so that if something happened to you or your company, they would be able to make feature changes and bug fixes. I have seen this several times. I've only seen a company acquire the escrowed code once and the guy who developed the code ended up selling it off to the company that claimed the escrowed code.
m.bergman
For Bruce Schneier, quanta only have one state : afraid.
To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered. -- Voltaire
In most cases the only difference between disappointment and depression is your level of commitment. -- Marc Maron
I am not a chatbot
-
Hi, I'd like to know what CodeProject people think about this... I have been contacted by one software vendor regarding of one of my products, which I released to public some time ago. The product is licensed for free commercial and non-commercial use. I have also made the source code available while retained my copyrights on it. The company (who contacted me) expressed interest in my product and asked about the product road-map. Then in the next email they informed me that they want to use my software but have concerns about dealing with products being developed by small companies or individuals. Thus they suggested that I entered in the contract with them. According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests". I am going to reject the proposal, it's not a question. But I am just curious, is this normal? Why is it OK to buy a commercial software - without any promise of the future development - without a source code (even "read-only") - usually without any guaranteed support after a year - without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source code And why is it not OK to apply the same criteria to the opened source software (even if it is not GPL licensed)? As part of my product maintenance I pay for the Web hosting and the domain registration. I spend great deal of time for supporting my users and I have been many times complimented for this. I am appreciating but not expecting donations. I spend my money and free time simply because of "my love to art". It is just happens that my full time occupation and the hobby are the same thing. So why when I am sharing something useful am I also expected to provide my "account PIN number"? Am I being paranoiac?
-
:thumbsup: That sounds faintly familiar ... and it was pretty painfull ...
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS My LinkedIn Profile
-
Hi, I'd like to know what CodeProject people think about this... I have been contacted by one software vendor regarding of one of my products, which I released to public some time ago. The product is licensed for free commercial and non-commercial use. I have also made the source code available while retained my copyrights on it. The company (who contacted me) expressed interest in my product and asked about the product road-map. Then in the next email they informed me that they want to use my software but have concerns about dealing with products being developed by small companies or individuals. Thus they suggested that I entered in the contract with them. According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests". I am going to reject the proposal, it's not a question. But I am just curious, is this normal? Why is it OK to buy a commercial software - without any promise of the future development - without a source code (even "read-only") - usually without any guaranteed support after a year - without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source code And why is it not OK to apply the same criteria to the opened source software (even if it is not GPL licensed)? As part of my product maintenance I pay for the Web hosting and the domain registration. I spend great deal of time for supporting my users and I have been many times complimented for this. I am appreciating but not expecting donations. I spend my money and free time simply because of "my love to art". It is just happens that my full time occupation and the hobby are the same thing. So why when I am sharing something useful am I also expected to provide my "account PIN number"? Am I being paranoiac?
I assume we are talking about C# Script - and by the way - thanks for sharing this with the rest of us!
Oleg Shilo wrote:
Am I being paranoiac
No
Oleg Shilo wrote:
According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests".
Glad to hear that you are going to reject the proposal, it sounds like a legal minefield ...
Oleg Shilo wrote:
Why is it OK to buy a commercial software
- without any promise of the future development
- without a source code (even "read-only")
- usually without any guaranteed support after a year
- without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all
its customers will receive the rights on all source codeBecause the customer is given no other choice ...
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS My LinkedIn Profile
-
I assume we are talking about C# Script - and by the way - thanks for sharing this with the rest of us!
Oleg Shilo wrote:
Am I being paranoiac
No
Oleg Shilo wrote:
According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests".
Glad to hear that you are going to reject the proposal, it sounds like a legal minefield ...
Oleg Shilo wrote:
Why is it OK to buy a commercial software
- without any promise of the future development
- without a source code (even "read-only")
- usually without any guaranteed support after a year
- without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all
its customers will receive the rights on all source codeBecause the customer is given no other choice ...
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS My LinkedIn Profile
>I assume we are talking about C# Script - and by the way - thanks for sharing this with the rest of us! No, it is about Wix#, which is at the moment at the "teenage stage" comparing to C# Script. Thank you for your response/support. It seems like my interpretation of the situation is consistent with the one people have here. :) Thanks, Oleg
-
Hi, I'd like to know what CodeProject people think about this... I have been contacted by one software vendor regarding of one of my products, which I released to public some time ago. The product is licensed for free commercial and non-commercial use. I have also made the source code available while retained my copyrights on it. The company (who contacted me) expressed interest in my product and asked about the product road-map. Then in the next email they informed me that they want to use my software but have concerns about dealing with products being developed by small companies or individuals. Thus they suggested that I entered in the contract with them. According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests". I am going to reject the proposal, it's not a question. But I am just curious, is this normal? Why is it OK to buy a commercial software - without any promise of the future development - without a source code (even "read-only") - usually without any guaranteed support after a year - without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source code And why is it not OK to apply the same criteria to the opened source software (even if it is not GPL licensed)? As part of my product maintenance I pay for the Web hosting and the domain registration. I spend great deal of time for supporting my users and I have been many times complimented for this. I am appreciating but not expecting donations. I spend my money and free time simply because of "my love to art". It is just happens that my full time occupation and the hobby are the same thing. So why when I am sharing something useful am I also expected to provide my "account PIN number"? Am I being paranoiac?
Thank you all for your answers. I feel better now. So I am not the only one who find the situation a bit "strange".
-
I'm not sure how they CAN screw you if he isn't willing to be screwed. He's more then welcome to reject the offer (as I would). Now depending on the type of the license he used, GPL for instance, he should watch whether they'll use his code in their product anyways.
-
>I assume we are talking about C# Script - and by the way - thanks for sharing this with the rest of us! No, it is about Wix#, which is at the moment at the "teenage stage" comparing to C# Script. Thank you for your response/support. It seems like my interpretation of the situation is consistent with the one people have here. :) Thanks, Oleg
Wix# ? Don't wonder about the broad grins in people's faces when you sell it in Germany. :) Naming your project can be hard, especially avoiding any unintended meanings in other languages. On the other hand it could also draw some attention to it, so just keep going. :)
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
Hi, I'd like to know what CodeProject people think about this... I have been contacted by one software vendor regarding of one of my products, which I released to public some time ago. The product is licensed for free commercial and non-commercial use. I have also made the source code available while retained my copyrights on it. The company (who contacted me) expressed interest in my product and asked about the product road-map. Then in the next email they informed me that they want to use my software but have concerns about dealing with products being developed by small companies or individuals. Thus they suggested that I entered in the contract with them. According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests". I am going to reject the proposal, it's not a question. But I am just curious, is this normal? Why is it OK to buy a commercial software - without any promise of the future development - without a source code (even "read-only") - usually without any guaranteed support after a year - without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source code And why is it not OK to apply the same criteria to the opened source software (even if it is not GPL licensed)? As part of my product maintenance I pay for the Web hosting and the domain registration. I spend great deal of time for supporting my users and I have been many times complimented for this. I am appreciating but not expecting donations. I spend my money and free time simply because of "my love to art". It is just happens that my full time occupation and the hobby are the same thing. So why when I am sharing something useful am I also expected to provide my "account PIN number"? Am I being paranoiac?
The way you've described this seems very odd to me. They can already use your stuff free of charge. They have the source code. If you went to live on a desert island, they'd be no worse off then that now. They want you to give them the rights to this "thing" if you ignore them - not just grant them continuing rights to use it. Unless they're going to pay you to develop this thing further, or buy the exclusive rights from you, I really can't see why you'd even bother with rejecting them. Where's your incentive in all this? Business is trade for mutual profit. If it's onesided, just reply with "dream on!", or "talk to me when you have a clue." Iain.
I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!
-
Hi, I'd like to know what CodeProject people think about this... I have been contacted by one software vendor regarding of one of my products, which I released to public some time ago. The product is licensed for free commercial and non-commercial use. I have also made the source code available while retained my copyrights on it. The company (who contacted me) expressed interest in my product and asked about the product road-map. Then in the next email they informed me that they want to use my software but have concerns about dealing with products being developed by small companies or individuals. Thus they suggested that I entered in the contract with them. According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests". I am going to reject the proposal, it's not a question. But I am just curious, is this normal? Why is it OK to buy a commercial software - without any promise of the future development - without a source code (even "read-only") - usually without any guaranteed support after a year - without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source code And why is it not OK to apply the same criteria to the opened source software (even if it is not GPL licensed)? As part of my product maintenance I pay for the Web hosting and the domain registration. I spend great deal of time for supporting my users and I have been many times complimented for this. I am appreciating but not expecting donations. I spend my money and free time simply because of "my love to art". It is just happens that my full time occupation and the hobby are the same thing. So why when I am sharing something useful am I also expected to provide my "account PIN number"? Am I being paranoiac?
If the source is open, they don't need that kind of guarantee. If you stop working on it, they can just take the source and update it themselves. It sounds like they're trying to do one of two things: - Kill your product because they have produced something similar. - Kill the open-source element of your product, so that they can sell it and profit from your work. Either way, they will steal your customers -- and you will probably find that the contract will even allow them to charge you for using your own product. I'd run a mile.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Wix# ? Don't wonder about the broad grins in people's faces when you sell it in Germany. :) Naming your project can be hard, especially avoiding any unintended meanings in other languages. On the other hand it could also draw some attention to it, so just keep going. :)
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
Ha-ha, I have asked my German colleague about meaning of 'Wix#' in German. Well... the girl eventually explained it but she clearly felt uncomfortable. ;) But at least it was not me who created the problem. I am not responsible for the 'Wix' part, I just added '#'. But from now on I will make 'WixSharp' a preferred written form.
-
Hi, I'd like to know what CodeProject people think about this... I have been contacted by one software vendor regarding of one of my products, which I released to public some time ago. The product is licensed for free commercial and non-commercial use. I have also made the source code available while retained my copyrights on it. The company (who contacted me) expressed interest in my product and asked about the product road-map. Then in the next email they informed me that they want to use my software but have concerns about dealing with products being developed by small companies or individuals. Thus they suggested that I entered in the contract with them. According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests". I am going to reject the proposal, it's not a question. But I am just curious, is this normal? Why is it OK to buy a commercial software - without any promise of the future development - without a source code (even "read-only") - usually without any guaranteed support after a year - without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source code And why is it not OK to apply the same criteria to the opened source software (even if it is not GPL licensed)? As part of my product maintenance I pay for the Web hosting and the domain registration. I spend great deal of time for supporting my users and I have been many times complimented for this. I am appreciating but not expecting donations. I spend my money and free time simply because of "my love to art". It is just happens that my full time occupation and the hobby are the same thing. So why when I am sharing something useful am I also expected to provide my "account PIN number"? Am I being paranoiac?
first, you should be aware that you hold all the cards. You have no obligation to do or sign anything with any third party. The fact that they approached you simply indicates their reluctance to use a product without ownership. You are in a position to negotiate and sell or license as you see fit. Best advice I could give you is not to sign until you speak directly with them and get what you want from the deal. It really does not matter whether you have licensed the software or are giving it away as open source code. They are looking for a reason to use a product you have rights to and it is entirely up to you how you allow that process to unfold.furthermore, you should never give up your rights to ownership, derivative work, or any other form without adequate compensation. They know this and hope that you do not. Good luck.
regards, jr
-
Ha-ha, I have asked my German colleague about meaning of 'Wix#' in German. Well... the girl eventually explained it but she clearly felt uncomfortable. ;) But at least it was not me who created the problem. I am not responsible for the 'Wix' part, I just added '#'. But from now on I will make 'WixSharp' a preferred written form.
Oleg Shilo wrote:
the girl eventually explained it but she clearly felt uncomfortable.
But why? The word is spelled differently, but pronounced the same and used to mean polishing something until it shines. Like shoes, for example. Nothing bad about it :)
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
Oleg Shilo wrote:
the girl eventually explained it but she clearly felt uncomfortable.
But why? The word is spelled differently, but pronounced the same and used to mean polishing something until it shines. Like shoes, for example. Nothing bad about it :)
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
an explanation for those not up on their german slang? from your context i get that the meaning is something similar to wank but im more curious what the word IS (since my dictionary, which usually has slang, does not have anything for wix or wichs)
-
Hi, I'd like to know what CodeProject people think about this... I have been contacted by one software vendor regarding of one of my products, which I released to public some time ago. The product is licensed for free commercial and non-commercial use. I have also made the source code available while retained my copyrights on it. The company (who contacted me) expressed interest in my product and asked about the product road-map. Then in the next email they informed me that they want to use my software but have concerns about dealing with products being developed by small companies or individuals. Thus they suggested that I entered in the contract with them. According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests". I am going to reject the proposal, it's not a question. But I am just curious, is this normal? Why is it OK to buy a commercial software - without any promise of the future development - without a source code (even "read-only") - usually without any guaranteed support after a year - without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source code And why is it not OK to apply the same criteria to the opened source software (even if it is not GPL licensed)? As part of my product maintenance I pay for the Web hosting and the domain registration. I spend great deal of time for supporting my users and I have been many times complimented for this. I am appreciating but not expecting donations. I spend my money and free time simply because of "my love to art". It is just happens that my full time occupation and the hobby are the same thing. So why when I am sharing something useful am I also expected to provide my "account PIN number"? Am I being paranoiac?
Usually this sort of contract is done with commercial software (not open source). The company in question offers to pay the licensing fees (and additional fees for the source), but in the event the small software shop closes up, their business doesn't go belly-up for lack of a critical piece of software. In short - it's time for you to negotiate. If you sign the contract, as written, they can claim you stopped developing and take the software at time (and you've received nothing for it.)
-
Hi, I'd like to know what CodeProject people think about this... I have been contacted by one software vendor regarding of one of my products, which I released to public some time ago. The product is licensed for free commercial and non-commercial use. I have also made the source code available while retained my copyrights on it. The company (who contacted me) expressed interest in my product and asked about the product road-map. Then in the next email they informed me that they want to use my software but have concerns about dealing with products being developed by small companies or individuals. Thus they suggested that I entered in the contract with them. According this contract they will get the rights on my source code in case I decided to stop developing the product further or "stop responding on their requests". I am going to reject the proposal, it's not a question. But I am just curious, is this normal? Why is it OK to buy a commercial software - without any promise of the future development - without a source code (even "read-only") - usually without any guaranteed support after a year - without a contract agreement that if the software provider goes out of busines all its customers will receive the rights on all source code And why is it not OK to apply the same criteria to the opened source software (even if it is not GPL licensed)? As part of my product maintenance I pay for the Web hosting and the domain registration. I spend great deal of time for supporting my users and I have been many times complimented for this. I am appreciating but not expecting donations. I spend my money and free time simply because of "my love to art". It is just happens that my full time occupation and the hobby are the same thing. So why when I am sharing something useful am I also expected to provide my "account PIN number"? Am I being paranoiac?
I've seen an employment contract that was just as devilish from an organization that claimed to be a Christian ministry. It was so stacked against the employee that the employee would owe the company money even if God Himself caused the employee to failed to fulfill part of the contract. That is not being Christian. Here's what I suggest you should consider doing: Send them a notice stating: Whereas the company, "the company name" has actively plotted, conspired, schemed and actively attempted to defraud, steal, rob, and or con the rightful owner and developer of WinSharp out of his legal and lawful intellectual property, all rights and licenses of "the company name" to use WinSharp is hereby now and forever revoked. As the rightful developer and owner of WinSharp is not willing nor at liberty to deal with individuals and companies that are as morally and intellectually limited as "the companies name" has proven themselves to be through their rejected offer. It would be even funnier if it was a legal cease and desist order issued by a judge. :laugh: Unless of course you want to negotiate a reasonable contract with them. Personally, I'd be to offended and just let my compulsive perfectionist disorder respond to what is clearly a group of stupid people. It is one thing for a person to make a mistake, but being as obviously stupid as this offer implies they are, I don't think I could help myself with informing them of just how stupid they are. If you decide to negotiate with them, make damned sure you hire an attorney and a good one at that. And be as cynical as a cynic can be. The people and this company can not and should not be trusted one iota. It might be a good idea for people providing free software to stipulate in their licenses that the license and right to use the software freely will be revoked if the individual or company attempts to obtain ownership of the software through unscrupulous and underhanded legal means. Scott A. Tovey
