Thanks again for your reply. *Summery of my question* : My conditions are : *I decide if I make Wikibox Blue Open source *I decide when Wikibox Blue will be Open source *I decide on which conditions Wikibox Blue will be open source. The software is used as SAAS, designed by me and developed by programmers. Which I pay. So it is my ownership. I am intending to make my software Open Source but then I want to take the credits for it. *Summery of response :* A licence has value. It should not be altered. But in the end I have to fight. With Open Source I have more eyes looking for trouble and more voices willing to call out someone who abuses your product. It would be wise to store the first version to a public code repository. Also there was a remark then if I give better service then ... *Architect:* I am a architect of the software, not the developer. This means long term design. If my activity falls down, the project may continue for a few month's and will then stop. The remark "if I give a better service" is on a short term notice. There is a specific bug which has to be solved. The developer of the software can do that better then me. At least on the short notice. And that what count. So I always lose from the developer which I pay for and who claims he can do it himself. Why should I pay to create my own competitor? *Looking to the past :* Looking to past clarifies what I mean. The past is only a practical. Move away how it should be and see what it is. Please do not use the past for anything more the explanation. The software is Wikiation Extension Testing Environment (WETE) Extension testing started, to the outside world with the blog : http://extensiontesting.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%… and ended with the blog : http://extensiontesting.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html After this nothing hapend any more. At least on the blog. Credits for what I have done on Wikimania 2009 : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:200908261705-Gerard_Meijssen-Testing… Again the past is only to explain. I will solve the past myself. *Looking to the future* I have a small company. I want to be able to earn money from companies by deliver a service they need. With the money I earn this can go the the MediaWiki community with payment to MediaWiki programmer(s), to moderator(s) and small donations. Companies can have advantage of all the valuable work the MediaWiki community has done. Why these companies can not pay for what they get? It is hard to do. I can do it on a very limited scale. But it is hard, very hard. Donations also move money to the community. But a donation is charity. A donation is depending on the image not about what is delivered. And a donation is uncertain. A foundation may rely on donations a company can not. If I would make my Wikibox Blue software Open Source I take a very big risk. Above that I should be prepared to make an extra (legal) fight if my software is abused. And from the past I know it is not only a theoretical risk. This additional risk for a legal fight is just something I really can not afford. So my conclusion is unfortunately I can not make Wikibox Blue software Open Source. How much I would like to do so. Thanks to all you contributions. They gave me more insight. I got stimulation to make the software Open Source, and I got warned. I really feel I got support in my considerations. And enjoy the "catfeed" extension when released as Open Source. That is a small extension Wikiation together with Gabriel Wicke (both shared copyright) for listing categories using a AND and OR function See http://manual.wikiation.nl/Level_3_mediawiki_extension_catfeed That is a risk I and Gabriel are prepared to take. With regards Bernard http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:200908261705-Gerard_Meijssen-Testing…