Okay - last post I intend to make on the subject in here for awhile, so let's get it all tied up. EK: Open Source does not mean "it's open until someone locks it down for sale" which is in essence what you're proposing. It means that changes are allowed in perpetuity, and that changes to changes are/should be allowed. And yes, there is a difference between code and data - Source code is not readily apparent or even viewable without specialized tools, patience, and a little luck. OTOH, any fool can open a .cr2 with nearly any text editor. It is therefore easier to protect source code, and to make it available under certain conditions, like open/closed source licensing. Not so with data - it's all available for modification right then and there, so the mechanisms one would need to ptotect or keep it open are vastly different. BTW, it ain't condecension, just hard questions that need answered... it'll be easier to do that now, than trying to do it after a thousand different and conflicting assumptions are made and then sold by the recipients of these things. "However, the fact that they are trying to make money keeps being mentioned like it is something we need to watch out for. " Nope - just stating it, since folks tend to get all gushy about stuff being touted as one thing ('hey guy's we're giving it to you for free! Open Source!') when in reality it ain't been determined yet ('...but with conditions which we still need to determine'.) ;) /P