On Jul 9, 2020, at 13:38, Keating Floyd <kc4hsi@...> wrote:

?

Wow.? Y'all are a tough crowd!

?

I think Dave has done something pretty cool, and deserves some kudos.? How he chooses to package and present is up to him.

?

I, for one, thank you, Dave!

?

Keating

KC4HSI

?

?

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 4:18 PM Jim Erickson <jim@...> wrote:

“I would grant that request”?

?

Holy!? I’m out too.

------

73,
Jim
VA7SHG - Phone
VE7TGZ/VA7TGZ - Other

On Jul 9, 2020, at 12:13, Dave Slotter, W3DJS <slotter@...> wrote:

?

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 02:57 PM, thegadget techie wrote:

some implied remuneration?herein

I charge no money, nothing, nada, zilch.

I don't think asking for a postcard to remove a nag dialog is out of the question. What I wonder about is how petty a person can get that would complain about such a small thing? And if they choose not to send the postcard? Well, the nag dialog isn't going to prevent them from using the image.

If people have issues running BOINC, I'm not such an unreasonable person that if they approached me directly that i wouldn't force them to run it. Not everyone has a fan on their setup. I get it. So if they approached me with a good reason to disable it,?I would grant that request. But to take the choice away from me as the author of the creation is to strip away my rights that I worked hard for. It negates the six months of time I took to build the image and discourages me from sharing in the future.

And my source code is open for inspection. Just because I have a custom license and not a boilerplate GPL or MIT license keeps it from being open source. Nothing in my license takes away existing GPL licenses. People are free to modify their GPL software. I think there's a lot of headache due to "armchair lawyers" not understanding the nuances of the law or the LICENSE as it pertains to the software image and misapplying their incorrect assumptions.
?
--?
- Dave
??

?

?

?