At 1:42 PM -0700 on 7/6/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
>Anthony : Well, the licencing issue is pretty much a non-issue
>presently...
>
>Alain : I disagree. What you write below actually confirms rather than
>refutes my argument that the licencing issue is potentially explosive.
Later, it will be. But presently, there are two people who need to agree.
Uli and myself.
>
>Anthony : The people who write the stuff will decide a licence. I can't
>force Uli -- and should not be able for force -- to accept the LGPL,
>and simularly no one can force me -- or should be able to force me --
>to accept a clause forbidding sale of Interpreter.
>
>Alain : In this scheme, each separate element/module/component/whatever
>will have a different licence associated with it. What a headache.
All I said was that it would be wrong to force someone to accept a certain
licence; a person may, of course, try and convence someone.
>And
>that�s assuming that each contribution is modular enough to be so
>distinguished. What about the contributions that are not modular (a
>feature that is useful across the board, for example) or contributions
>that are themselves collaborations?
Someone wrote the code. The idea that two people can write the same code is
rather silly. I can see it broken down line-by-line, at most.
>
>Anthony : The programmers, artists, etc. who have their actual
>intellectual property in OpenCard obviously have to agree on some terms
>under which to put OpenCard out, but that's long into the future.
>
>Alain : Contributors should know beforehand how their work will be
>used. ...
I don't think we have to worry about that much until there are some real
contributions... (Yes, I know about the FS, the Interpreter, but there is
nothing else being done that is actually part of OpenCard)
>
>Anthony : More explosive is the line, "where commercial interests might
>cloud our community-spirit."
>
>Alain : I should perhaps re-phrase this line because, as evidenced by
>your reaction to it, its meaning is ambiguous.
Please do.
>
>Anthony : Because, quite frankly, I don't think any of us are here
>except that we have something -- a replacement for a needed software
>product -- to gain. At least I hope that's the case.
>
>Alain : Yes, a replacement for HyperCard that will allow us to author
>stacks and standalones that are royalty-free (no licencing hassles).
>A
>prohibition on the resale of OpenCard itself would be understandable
>however.
So, who gets to sell it? I don't think that such a prohibition is
understandable. Quite frankly, if we allow people to distribute it, who
would buy it -- unless it was somehow more convienent?
>
>Anthony : And I don't think that there is anything wrong with
>commercial interests...
>
>Alain : You�re absolutely right. As a developer, I want to develop
>high-quality software in as little time as possible. The tools
>currently available are UN-satisfactory. I am still searching for a
>system/language combination (toolbox) that will provide me with
>everything I need to develop my value-added solutions. OODL would fit
>that bill quite nicely.
Glad to hear it. But one thing... let's try and keep the acronyms straight,
or we'll all wind up confused. OODL = Opensource OpenCard Development List.
>
>Anthony : ... and everything wrong with "community-spirit" -- at least
>in the sense it is normally held to mean.
>
>Alain : Wow! We don�t have the same definition of community-spirit. I
>was alluding to the fact that by concerting our efforts we will achieve
>something that no one person could pull off by himself, something
>comparable to or superior to what providers like MicroSloth are dishing
>out. Power to the People, so to speak.
Ah. OK. I see. By that definition, I don't think there is a problem. Though
I would call that teamwork, perhaps.
>
>Anthony : No one here should be under any obligation to contribute any
>work; any work forced out of people will be lower than par in quality,
>and is wrong, besides.
>
>Alain : QUITE RIGHT! Who could argue otherwise? I would NEVER EVER
>suggest that we force anyone to work for us against their will.
Let me just put it this way: I will happily participate in a discussion on
licence terms, so long as the final decision is by unanimous consent of
those who own the intellectual property, alone.
"He who writes the code gets to choose his license, and nobody
else gets to complain". -- Linus
