Someone : This really should be your first step. There is a continuum
of choices here, any of which would be acceptable to us as part of the
process of granting a MetaCard license to UFP/OpenCard members:
Uli : I'm in favor of Copyleft.
Alain : I favor the PERL Artistic Licence.
Uli : I think it's important that the editing environment we devise is
always available for all users to expand upon.
Alain : Agreed.
Uli : I have a dislike to a certain degree against proprietary
software.
Alain : Me too.
Uli : We should require a note that it's based on UFP work, though.
Alain : OK.
Someone : I would also recommend you appoint a "leader" to coordinate
this and any other decision-making process. Anarchy is fine for some
things, but the key characteristic of all successful Open Source
projects that I know of is that there is one person ultimately
responsible for making decisions. Without that, you'll end up with just
a lot of talk and not much to show for it ...
Alain : I understand what you are saying but I believe that what you
are writing here is merely a hypothesis. In the end, you may be right,
but I still clinging to the dream that a direct democracy that does not
require any representatives is possible. A hypothesis too, of course.
Someone : ... ( which is about exactly what you've got so far ).
Alain : I beg to differ somewhat. The direct-democracy approach may be
more complicated and slower, at first, but would pay off many times
over later on down the road. Leaders who make "fast and efficient"
decisions without consulting their constituents, almost invariably get
it at least partially wrong. And, in any case, the leader's expediency
does not rally the troops to his goals as optimally as would their
participation in the goal-setting process.
Uli : When the UFP started out we took votes and appointed Alain. The
problem was that we forgot to appoint a vice.
Alain : What does the vice do ?
Uli : BTW, I'm also in favor of a limited MetaCard license. That is,
the version of MC that the UFP gets for this project shouldn't be
applicable for commercial projects.
Alain : Let's be clear that we are talking about the MetaCard-Engin
only, eh.
Alain : It's a shame that projects created with OpenCard and the
MC-engin will not be distributable because of the licencing
restrictions on the engin. I wonder if MetaCard would consider some
favorable licencing terms for this eventuality, or a licence-free
runtime MC-engin, or something.
Uli : It should also display a message somewhere (maybe at the bottom
of each window) that mentions that this is only for UFP use so there is
no chance of this MetaCard license tourism.
Alain : How about a splash=screen instead ? I don't like the idea of
displaying such a notice on every page of the OpenCard interface. The
interface and the engin are two separate entities. Besides, the latter
will eventually be replaced by our own engin.
Uli : There are too many people who would do things like this ..
Alain : You are refering to the pirating of the MetaCard-engin, are
you not ?
Uli : ...and they would slow down development too much.
Alain : Sorry I don't follow. The pirating of MC would not slow down
our development, unless MC decides to opt out.
Uli : Thus, we have to make this unattractive to them.
Alain : Yes. We have to make the pirating of MC an unattractive
prospect. But the scheme that we come up with must not hinder our
development efforts nor OpenCard's OpenSource status.
Alain : Here's a controversial proposition for solving the MC-engin
licencing issue. Install a web robot in the MC-engin that acts like a
homing-pigeon e.g. the robot would notify MetaCard of licence
violations thru the WWW.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
