Hi Photowebmax and noahlearner,
If you have read TreasureChest 1.1 webpage, I explicitely mention at the top of the page that TreasureChest was initially developped by Scotty Delicious up to the 1.0 version and provide a link to the www.treasurechestcart.com website.
It is clearly mentioned that my distribution is an enhancement of TreasureChest 1.0.
Also in TreasureChest 1.1 copyright notice, I clearly mention that TreasureChest 1.0 is copyrighted to Scotty.
The source code of the 1.1 version comments and dates the changes made since version 1.0. In this fact, it respects much more the GNU/GPL than what is often practiced.
Renaming the software would not have been better than keeping its name I think. I don’t prevent anyone developping concurrent version. Maybe to avoid confusion if there are other forks to come, I could add a suffix after the software name to more clearly mention the distribution.
The philosophy of the GNU GPL license is that concurrent versions may exist and there are many companies in the word living from their distributions.
For instance, PERL is GPL and ActiveState.com earns money with its ActivePerl distribution.
Everyone is allowed to make distributions of GNU/GPL softwares and to sell them. You also can as long as you respect the GNU GPL license.
From what I remember, Scotty told that TreasureChest was GPL and that’s all. I cannot remember any other condition on future versions. Was there?
In the context of the GNU GPL, "free" means "open source" and there is often a misunderstanding about this.
The free software Foundation tells: "Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can."
Even if you’re not a developper, you can charge for free software.