> Alain: To be considered GPL we would merely have to
> insist that derivatives of OpenKard will be open
> source too, correct?
Anthony: Standalones would have to be GPL then, too.
Alain: I suppose that you (and Scott) are right that
standalones would be considered derivative works.
Anthony: We've been over this at length.
Alain: Yes, I guess that we have. I am sorry to have
dredged this up again without first consulting the
mail archive. Having done so now, I am not sure that I
have fully conveyed the importance of standalones. So
I will state them briefly here. In one word,
Encapsulation. Do we really expect each and every user
of one our stacks to install the complete unabridged
version of the Standard Distribution? And consistently
maintain it too?
As a developer, one can never be sure that they really
have the complete set and/or the latest versions of
the components, patches, and so on. And suppose they
did do all they were supposed to, flawlessly. There is
still no guarantee that an improved version of one of
our components will not suddenly break an old stack
that functionned well with the older non-improved
version of the component.
Alain: On the other hand, if everything the stack
needs to function well is bundled into the stack
(standalone), at the source (developer), then all the
right parts are present, the user's system doesn't
have to be burdened with the entire Standard
distribution, he doesn't have anything further to do
to complicate his life, everything works now and will
continue to work later, despite version changes in
OpenKard (unless the OS breaks the program of course).
Anthony: ... if we use the GPL as is ...
Alain: We could draft our own unique variant of GPL,
with the help of Eric. Isn't that what we are doing
already?
Anthony: In short, if we use the GPL as is, then all
standalones must be under the GPL. If we add a clause
exempting standalones, all I have to do to make it
closed-source is create a standalone. The GPL would
work, were it not for these problems.
Alain: If this means that, in order to protect
ourselves against a MicroSloth takeover by using GPL,
we must forego the advantages that standalones would
have represented for us, then so be it.
> Alain: Although I have written about this often and
> recently, it bears recalling once more that I do
> NOT consider software created with the OpenKard
> authoring system to be derivative works, and thus
> would NOT have to be open source (e.g. commercial
> interest ). If it were otherwise, all documents
typed
> with MicroSoft Word would be the intellectual
property
> of MicroSoft (for example).
Anthony: Your analogy does not hold. MS-Word documents
do not contain any portion of MS-Word in them. The
contain no intellectual property created by MicroSoft.
Alain: Bad example, I guess. How about HyperCard? Or
other softwares where the distinction between program
and data is blurry. I greatly appreciate the fact that
we can create HyperCard standalone programs without
any licencing restrictions whatsoever. Its a really
big plus. If proprietary Apple can be so generous, why
can't we who profess to be open and free be as
generous?
Anthony: OpenKard standalones, however, contain the
entire OpenKard engine -- quite a bit of GPL-covered
intellectual property.
Alain: So do HyperCard standalones, but your point is
well made though. If we want GPL protection, it is
likely that we will have to forego standalones.
Alain: Besides, given the fact that our engin is not
ready yet and, consequently that we will be using
MetaCard's engin for the time being, we cannot allow
standalones because MetaCard's engin is not open
source.
Anthony: OpenKard stacks would be fine ...
Alain: You are agreeing with me, are you not, that
stacks created with the OpenKard authoring tool would
not be constrained (infected) by the GPL-licence?
Alain: The worse part about not allowing standalones
is the fact that we would oblige our users to get,
install and maintain the entire Standard Distribution
to run their OpenKard stacks, albeit for free. The
alternative to standalones that I envision now would
be to provide an open source PLAYER of OpenKard
stacks.
Alain: Does Scott already make available a free
player? Would he be willing to provide one? In the
negative, we will have to wait for our own to be
developed. What will our end-users use to run their
OpenKard stacks while our engin/player is not ready?
Anthony: ... except perhaps for any icons and
resources copied from OpenKard -- but those can be
exempted fairly easily and without disasterous
consequence.
Alain: Good.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
