On 13 May 2002, at 16:04, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
> Good! but I think you need an appendix which states: > - Who is the registar > - What is the address of the registar > - Who are the distributors/resellors (address and more also) yes of course, you're right, at least as far as the registrar goes - the reseller list can evolve perhaps more easily (unless you all vote me out of the office...). > } Official statement > } ================== > } > } > } 1/ This software, called 'SMSQ/E', is copyright > } © Tony TEBBY. > > I know you have better understanding of laws than me, > but I've always been told that: > - Copyright without a date is void. (How else would I get > a chance to wait for it to expire...) > - Copyright is only for USA, there is different protection > in Europ (including the Bern convention which acknoledge the > US copyright). Specifically, the statements should reserve > all the rights excepted the ones already mentionned. > (Just in case I want to make a movie out of the SMSQ/E, > currently, nothing stop me from: > - adapting > - broadcasting the play > - making DVD of the play > - distributing DVD of the play > - ... Umm yes; the probability of anybody making a play out of SMSQ/E is pretty small though ... :-). As to the Copyright, yes the date will be there, and, despite the Berne Convention and the way copyright is handled in some european countries, it still is better to add the sign... > As I said, Put the 'i.e. me' in an appendix. > And provide your postal address too! > The post office should get a visit soon. Good! And of course I shall! > Ok, That should fix the 'beta' distribution! But there > is later contradiction. Contradiction? I'd prefer exception. An exception to a rule is no contradiction (unless you want to get all philosophical now...). > That's define the obligations of the registrar, > but that's does not forbid someone else from doing > the same. Well, at least the resellors might also > provide support, but probably not debugging/correction ? Well - support! As for somebody else doing the same, the licence explicitly allows you to distribute the source code, so no problem there. > Good, there is nevertheless no obligation to distribute > the original source along with the change... > I'm afraid of the distribution of 'patched' sources only, > with divergent patches... Integration nightmare ? Ah - but there is only one Official distribution at any moment in time. I do NOT want to stop people from diddling with the code if they want to. > Ok, no web, no email, no ftp, no BBS, no ...; > What's a disk ? floppy or CD ? would a Syquest elect ? > what about a Zip ? and a sinclair microdrive ? a DVD-R ? > What about QL network ? even via sernet ? I think that I can reasonably say that a disk is ...a disk. I do not think that we would really have much difficuly in deciding whether something is a disk ornot. > There is restriction on the distribution of the source, > but I do not read there is such for the binary. It says somewhere that you can't deistribute the binaries of SMSQ/E - period (with the test version exception). Now, if you write an extension to the OS in such a way that it can be distributed alone, why should this be concerned by the SMSQ/E licence ? - let's take Thierry Godefroy's CD driver as an example. It is a simple file that can be LRESPR'D - so why should it be covered by the SMSQ/E licence? TG can do whetever he likes with it. On the other hand, if it were integreted into the OS, then it would come within the scope of the licence. But, if TG has the SMSQ/E codes, perhaps the can make his own driver even better (if this were possible :-)) or suggest/implement changes to the OS (e.g. Open calls, thierry???) that makes his code better. > Moreover, the binary distribution seems to be allowed > until a ressellors make available an official versions > (without or with the change). No.. > Was the intend to allow the distribution of a modified binary > by someone, as long as this someone does not also provide > the original or official version in binary too ? As long as nothing of SMSQ/E itself is also distributed. > [Pervert distribution: I change the default background to be > blue instead of black, and that's the only change, therefore > I'm allowed to charge big money for distribution of the binary, > or even to distribute the new binary on the web!] No that won't work. May I quote: " Except by prior agreement, binary, i.e. compiled, versions of SMSQ/E may not be distributed other than through the distributors. " There is an exception for testing versions, that's it. > Currently, the modified source is free and protected, > the modified binary need more restriction (at least for free and > distribution means) or I need confirmation about my silly thoughts. :-) I hope the above is clear enough? > } 6/ Any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions > } may be proposed by their author(s) to the > } registrar for inclusion in the official > } distributions of SMSQ/E. > > Adding also in Appendix how such proposal should be made. > (expected format, will you give a confirmation, and so on) Oh yes, great idea - I must conform to the styleguide, notably... [SNIP] > Oh... source tree designed by a comittee... > management might turn to be difficult. There are just 3 possibilities... od default values! > > } 8/ For testing purposes only, authors having > } made one or several > } changes/additions/modifications/adaptions of > } SMSQ/E may, as an exception to the prohibition > } of distributing code stemming from the official > } release version in binary form as mentioned > } above, give away binary version of their code, > } together with binary versions of SMSQ/E, to not > } more than 10 persons in total (whatever the > } number of test versions), provided that the > > <Humor> Ok, let's start cloning myself, I want to distribute to the world!. > </Humor> Oh, us "poor" lawyers will have fun when human beings are cloned - are they one and the same person (if so, can you put in jail one of them if the other commits a crime?). > } Finally, I would like to add a personal note: > } > } I have been approached privately by persons > } finding this licence unfair, for two reasons > } which haven't been aired in this list yet: > } > } 1/ When a new author adds some code to make > } SMSQ/E better, only the resellers (and Tony > } Tebby) see some profit from it. > > I do not see any problem here. Neither do I, personally . > If they were that smart, they would have redone SMSQ/E from nothing! Hear, hear, hear. > More probably, they will contribute to 1% of the works, and > Ego is paid by the acknoledgement (no ego-tax yet)! > } 2/ Authors making additions etc are still > } prohibited from distributing binary versions of > } SMSQ/E, even for free. > > Unless for beta, if they clone themselves or are numerous > (if a class of a thousand people were to patch the source, > it gives a beta-distribution right of ten thousand copies!) .. which isn't likely to happen... > Wrong. I can agree to that! Well, I can, too, put I did want to point this out for honesty's sake. I hope that those who don't agree will make their point of view clear in this forum, as well! Wolfgang
