On 13 May 2002, at 13:44, Dave wrote: > > Never say things likje 'the "registrar", i.e. me.' because this means "me" > is the registrar. This is very open to abuse. You would here put a > personal or organisation name and contact details. Obviously this is a > draft, but this does need correcting.
Sure - this is why this isn't the licence yet. (snip) binary distribution. > There. Software developers are explicitly allowed to distribute beta/test > versions as listed above. ..as an exception to the rule, as is explicitly stated - sure. I seem to remember this was inspired by you..... :-) > However, the way this is currently structured is > open to abuse. > > May I suggest a small change here? > > Limit distribution of beta/test versions to only those who a) are already > entitled by license to posess a copy and b) are actively involved in > testing or debugging the software. This will allow genuine distribution, > but prevent distribution on a "friendly" basis. I thought about that, but there were two arguments that dissuaded me from it: If you develop new hardware, the tester may not have a legitimate copy of SMSQ/E yet - since it runs on new hardware... Some testers are "only" users - they are great testers, but are they "actively involved" (try to define that!!!) ? > Finally, I strongly advise a change to the structure of the document now > that the content is almost there ;o) I would recommend defining > "Licensor", "Licensed Distributor", "Licensed Developer" and "Licensed > User" as all have different rights and restrictions placed on them by the > above license. Yup. > If you would like, I would be happy to assist you privately to do this, > without changing either the intent or the specifics of the license as it > now stands... Or even publicly! I have absolutely no qualms about accepting help from all of you! Wolfgang
