On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Adrian Sutton wrote:
> > > Ah, we're not that online yet. ;) We've got the mailing list back up
> >
> > so how can i help on development??
>
> Good question. Do you know C++? If so could someone who
> knows what's happening with the compiler speak up? If not, you
> could help in designing the user interface and generally dreaming
> about what features you want to see in opencard - and telling the
> list your dreams of course. :)
>
> I beleive when the server was stolen, we were discussing which
> tool to use to prototype the UI. I believe we were offered a copy of
> MetaCard to use for this purpose, I haven't been informed of the
> details of this despite my asking previously and I'm not sure if
> anyone knows.
Alain Farmer and I had extensive communication about this, but
apparently he's still "off the air" and probably won't even have a
record of what was discussed when he returns since apparently all his
backups are gone for good. Here are some snippets of what I had
written to him previously with his comments. Apologies in advance for
quoting him out of context on a public list, but since he's hard to
get a hold of, there really isn't any alternative other than waiting,
and it seems to me too much of that has been done already:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
... We'd like to offer MetaCard as "working engine" to give the
OpenCard group a head start on the project: they could develop the UI
independent of the engine, then replace the MetaCard engine with the
OpenCard engine when the latter is ready. Otherwise the scripting
people (mostly the UFP group as I understand it) will have to wait
until the engine is done before they'd be able to contribute much.
We'd benefit by having an open-source alternative to the current
MetaCard UI (which many HyperCard users don't seem to care much
for).
> Alain : You're absolutely right, Scott. It would indeed provide us with
> a very big head-start, and it would occupy our scripters immediately
> instead of making them wait. It's great to have you aboard.
Now just for the politics part: Introducing the proposal to the UFP
and OpenCard developers in a tactful way that doesn't make it sound
like we're trying to pull a Microsoft (i.e., "embrace and extend" a
project into oblivion like they're trying to do with Java).
> Alain : First draft of arguments in favour of your proposal, Scott :
>
> 1. UFP and OpenCard members would get a MetaCard licence for free.
>
> 2. We could use MetaCard as "working engine" to give the OpenCard group a
> head-start on the project, particularly since MetaCard is already deployed on
> several platforms.
>
> 3. We develop the UI independent of the engine, then replace the MetaCard
> engine with the OpenCard engine when the latter is ready.
>
> 4. Otherwise the scripting people ( notably the UFP group ) will have to
> wait until the engine is done before they'd be able to contribute much.
>
> 5. OpenCard's UI and engine will forever be OpenSource.
>
> 6. We are a democratic group whose decision-making is based on consensus.
> Scott Raney will be a full-fledged member, like ourselves, with no specific
> privileges or authority over anyone or any process. Thus, Scott will not be
> able to hijack our group, even if that had been his intention, which I am
> confident it is not.
There are two concerns that will have to be addressed before we can
generate a licensed Home stack for the UFP/OpenCard projects. The
first is a license agreement for OpenCard and/or the UI (if it will
have a different name). We don't care if anyone (including the
UFP/OpenCard group) takes what they develop and sells it. We do want
to make sure that some core version of it remains free so that *we*
can continue to distribute it regardless of what anyone else does. A
license agreement would specify the terms under which it could be
used, modified, and distributed. Have you decided on something like
this already? If not, you could probably just adopt one of the
existing Open Source agreements out there.
The second issue is control over the distribution of the MetaCard
licenses granted to UFP/OpenCard members. For example, one thing that
might happen is that people start joining the UFP/OpenCard group just
to get a free MetaCard license and then never do any work on the
project (and worse, then go off and use the MetaCard license to make
money consulting or whatever). Someone could also just post the
license information to a piracy WWW site without fear of retribution
(normal licenses include an individual's name, making it much more
risky to do this).
What we'd like to see is one member of the group to act as a "license
master" who would collect some sort of agreement from each person who
gets a licensed Home stack. The agreement would basically be to
contribute X, which could be hours of work, or lines of script, or a
specific handler or dialog box, or something else (like serving as the
"license master" ;-) and to not let anyone else have a copy of their
licensed Home stack. We're very flexible about the exact terms, but
there should be *something* in place here.
If the UFP/OpenCard members decide to use MetaCard as a temporary
scaffolding on which to build the OpenCard UI, both of these issues
should be discussed on the two lists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's more to my archive of our conversation, but it mostly concerns
discussion of the details of the UFP/OpenCard licensing agreement and
the MetaCard license agreement with the UFP/OpenCard group, all of
which should be discussed anew because Alain does not speak for the
UFP or OpenCard groups. There were also a few questions about whether
it was really possible to replace the current MetaCard UI without
having access to the MetaCard engine source code. Anyone who's done
much exploration of the MetaCard UI will be able to confirm that you
can, so this shouldn't be an issue.
Regards,
Scott
> Adrian Sutton.
>
********************************************************
Scott Raney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metacard.com
MetaCard: You know, there's an easier way to do that...
