On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood replied to something I said:
> >I think this is the way most people would go. Obtain the sources, and use
> >them to gain insight into SMSQ, then reproduce each modular section and
> >release it under the GPL, until the entire OS has been replicated in a
> >GPL'd version. As a half-way step to this, people can accept the
> >distribution side of the license to receive the source, then produce new
> >self-contained replacement modules which they can sell. Nothing in the
> >license prevents someone from making replacement modules. Obviously this
> >is against the intent of the license, but as the code was not submitted to
> >the registrar, it is distributable outside of the original license, as
> >long as the module contains no original SMSQ code and is therefore not a
> >derivitive work
> Actually no. We have nothing against commercial extensions to the O/S,
> in fact we would love it to happen. We just want the main code to be
> uniform as I keep saying. I don't really like patches but you can LRESPR
> code into SMSQ/E and you can add your own modules. If we can sell these
> modules we would be very happy to do it and if the people want to give
> them away the same applies.
Roy, you use phrases like "commercial extensions", "add your own modules"
etc. I am not talking about that, and know that can happen in a healthy
way under this license. What I am talking about is *replacing* modules,
using the source to create/reverse engineer an Open Source version of
SMSQ. At what point does work product stop being derivitive code and start
being clean, unlicensed code? Basically, any module that doesn't include
any original SMSQ code fits that requirement. The task of rewriting an OS
is not trivial, but with the source, it's certainly a lot easier.
The point is that people can write new modules that carry out *existing*
module functionality, and distribute those, which actually increases the
fragmentation of SMSQ in a way that the registrar is unable to control,
because they would have no legal basis to do so. Even TT can't stop people
writing replacement sections of SMSQ.
It's human nature - I am certain beyond all doubt that there will be a
thriving development scene for SMSQ, and 90% of it will be beyond the
reach and control of the registrar. It would be in the majority of
developer's interest NOT to contribute their efforts, but to simply pad
out what is required and do a fee-based (not commercial, but fee-based, as
in resellers are not doing this commercially, but fee-based, think about
it ;)
Finally, I would like to say, as a moderate critic, that if you doubt my
intentions, I would like you to consider my thinking for a brief moment.
One who truly cares about the future of the scene will care greatly about
what form this license takes. Those who do not care, or to whom the
license is irrelevant, will remain silent. If I were a less honourable
person, I would not point out the obvious flaws and weaknesses, or jump
through the holes. I would leave them as wide open as possible and wait
until they're adopted.
People may be critical, but that is a positive thing if someone's motives
are to improve the license for everyone's sake. It's when a person tries
to change the license for their own benefit, or stays mysteriously quiet
that you have to worry.
Yours constructively
Dave
