On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: > Open Source is open to anybody to download and modify according to their needs. > HOWEVER in order to make ANY modification a part of the official source > tree it has to be approved by the registrar and the governing body... > The difference is that a non-approved modification ceases to be called > SMSQ/E anyway.
The point I think that's being made, is that SMSQ/E wouldn't lose anything by being truly open-source. The master copy of the code would be carefully managed, and submissions would be scrutinised for quality, suitability, and compatibility with SMSQ/E's goals... Yet people could still take the master and produce customisations. Don't need fancy screen drivers, use the old ones. Don't need xyz, strip it out. > As for potential revenue on making SMSQ/E opensource it's even greater than > it is now... This isn't just about selling CD-R's. It's about allowing SMSQ/E to be suitable for as many markets and functions as the market wants and is prepared to code for. The GOM's who run the 'committee' can then decide what is appropriate and what is inappropriate to merge with the main source. > Definitely some "fine tuning" on the terms of a license is needed in order > to benefit everyone and ensure continuation of SMSQ in perpetuity ;-) but > that can be arranged with understanding, lots of talk and a nice consensus :-) As long as the license isn't infectious, I'm right behind it. If it is infectious, I wouldn't touch it with a proverbial barge pole. IMHO Dave
