Thanks. "Recent activities" sounded like you were referring to something public (e.g. there'd been recent stories on HN about it) - but now it sounds private.

Thanks. "Recent activities" sounded like you were referring to something public (e.g. there'd been recent stories on HN about it) - but now it sounds private. We may differ in the following, but I think it's reasonable to enforce your IP if you created it and use it. As an uISV, it's important to me that customers pay for it (although I'd find it unpleasant to pursue infringing customers). Changing the license terms for future versions seems reasonable. And changing support terms even more so since it's a contractual agreement. Everybody complains about Oracle licensing terms (of their own products, eg RDB), but everybody pays. I think they must be getting value for money. Personally, I was (and am) unhappy with what Oracle is doing to Java - but I think it's reasonable. It was inevitable that they'd alter licensing terms in accordance with profitability. Oracle is a software company, unlike Sun which was a hardware company. And perhaps, pragmatically, that's for the best: Sun never made money from Java's success; now they are gone. Oracle's stewardship might be more realistic and sustainable. And a corporate steward seems important for mainstream adoption (though python, ruby etc seem to be doing OK without it). Thanks for answer on continuations. I'd heard of them used for submarine patents, to defer issuance, but I'm shocked that the US allows new subject matter to be added and get the benefit of the original priority date! That should be a separate invention IMHO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application#Continuation-in-part http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application#C...