On 18 May 2002, at 12:40, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > There is nothing in the license that would guarantee me any of my > changes will get back into official SMSQ. That is true. On the contrary, the registrar has the right to oinclude/exclude any code.
> There is nothing in the license to guarantee me that official > or inofficial binaries of SMSQ will be available. Of course not. On the contratry - there should ne no "inofficial" versions, at least none that I want to know about. > than the license is very badly engineered. It enforces discipline > by rather brute methods that will only hurt people who would like > to help and leaves too many important points wide open. > I have proposed alternatives to Wolfgang, something like this: > > << you are allowed to do anything with this code as long as > - you accept this copyright > - you leave this copyright message intact and don't > place any additional restrictions on the code > - you don't sell this source or anything derived from > this source, including binaries > - you don't branch the code. > licensing for commercial purposes is available under > following conditions: > ........... > ........... > >> Forgetting, of course: you may not distribute the binaries. But then, of course, this isn't to your liking any more, is it? > If discipline is all you want than this should do quite > well and still leave sufficient room for commercial > development. The formulation above may seem a bit naive > - it is. We aren't expecting to deal with criminals here, > are we? Well of course we are, aren't we? racketeers, all! Wolfgang ----------------- www.wlenerz.com
