At 4:30 PM +0200 on 7/6/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
>Alain,
>
> it is true that we need a working infrastructure, but as we have seen few
>results thus far (as you had to re-create the whole system from scratch
>after the thief's actions), we overlooked it somewhat. I'm glad you had the
>time to eork on it and that the Server is now coming back. I'm also happy
>as this means we'll soon have more of you on the lists again (you were sort
>of "out of business" for a while). So, glad to have you (and the server
><smirk>) back!
Hmmm... Is there a MacPerl installed on said server? I'd like to put up
some dynamic content, and you all know my views on AppleScript <veg>.
> Of course, but the trouble comes when we plug them all together. The
>differing licenses may cause us to drop a certain implementation (e.g. if I
>suddenly requested everyone using XBlockFile had to shell out $100 to me,
>you'd have to go and look for something different, setting you back a few
>seconds until you have a new file format).
I'd probably wind up writing it :( But it's your code, and if you want to
charge $100 for it, it's your perrogative.
Not, though, that the present Interpreters are all under the LGPL, so even
if I decided to never give you all another Interpreter, you've still got
the present ones.
>
> So, it'd be good if we made clear what license everything developed for OC
>will be under. Technically I don't mind even a PD license, but I'd feel
>much better if we had a license that makes sure everyone who uses OC (be it
>that he DLed it from the UFP site or bought it on CD-ROM) can add to it and
>look at the sources to fix bugs, and I also want people to be able to use
>OpenCard to create commercial applications of the caliber of Myst.
I definitely want people to be able to create commercial, shareware, and
freeware applications. Because I'll be one of the people doing it!
>
> PD would be a bit weak in that it'd allow people to compile OC and sell it
>w/o the sources and w/o a note where they can get the sources. So, if we
>added a clause that the URL of the UFP web site had to be included and
>maybe a "Made with OpenCard" logo (It can be in the second page of the
>about screen, or in a read-me file, I don't care, it just has to be in
>there somewhere),
We'd have to be a little more specific. Otherwise, it'd end up burried and
no one would ever see it.
>I'd be a happy camper. Or we could require people who
>distribute OpenCard to ship along the sources (at least the original ones
>they based their work on).
>
>>The programmers, artists, etc. who have their actual intellectual property
>>in OpenCard obvoisly have to agree on some terms under which to put
>>OpenCard out, but that's long into the future.
>
> Well, artists of sample stacks could just copyright the stack (including
>the graphics) but as real Open Source everything that's part of OpenCard
>should be free for personal use. Of course, we could provide special
>licenses for icons, graphics etc. which only allows that they be used in an
>OpenCard stack, and nowhere else ?
Well, some artwork has to be part of OpenCard: Someone has to draw the tool
icons. Someone has to design the built-in icons.
As far as how people licence their stacks, is, well, up to them. At least
in my opinion it should be.
>
>>More explosive is the line, "where commercial interests might cloud our
>>community-spirit."
>>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. And I don't think that there is anything
>>wrong with commercial interests, and everything wrong with
>>"community-spirit" -- at least in the sence it is normally held to mean. 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.
>
> I don't think people won't create quality if they don't get money out of
>it. But the main thing is true: Most of the people working on OC are doing
>this because they want to get back what HyperCard was/is to them.
I did not say money. Just "something to gain." For most of us, a better
version of HyperCard. Of course some of us will sell it.
>So, I
>agree that both commercial interests and community spirit are important
>here. But to have everyone gain from this, OpenCard has to be free.
>Everybody contributes and what they get from that is OpenCard and what they
>can do with OpenCard. Nothing more, except maybe experience and their name
>in the about box.
Should they not be allowed to sell OpenCard? Remember, no one would have to
buy it -- since it's free software, you can get it off a friend or download
it -- but there is a lot more convenience to a CD than a 10mb download.
