>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.
Adrian: This is where you're being a bit simplistic (no offence intended). I have
voiced my opinions on this list and I'm sure on some things you have taken notice of
those opinions, thus you have used my intellectual property and you must comply with
the licencing conditions I put on it. Now at this stage there's nothing that I could
specifically say was my idea or my contribution, but in the future I guarantee you
there will be. Contributions are not nessecarily code. Remember, there's the
interface and collaboration infrastructure that are vital to OpenCard as well. We all
need to agree as an organisation on the licencing agreement, and we need to know
before we start contributing work, or now, as soon as possible. Besides, we still
have MetaCard waiting in the wings for us to make this decision so that we can get
started on the UI.
>>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.
Adrian: The licence needs to be decided overall for any contributions being made to
the OpenCard collaborative (currently the best definition for this is the people
subscribed to this email list). This will avoid confusion amoungst users who want to
distribute stacks and amoung us. It's not acceptable to have a certain set of rules
for stacks that use this set of commands and a different set of rules for stacks that
use a different set. People who don't want their work to be released under the
OpenCard licence should not contribute that work to the group, if they do, it is under
the OpenCard licence or it shouldn't be accepted.
>>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.
Adrian: Two people can write the same line of code, I've done it with other students
in my course. We both sit at the computer and I might start typing the line, get
stuck and they'll complete it, or maybe there's a bug and they find it. People will
change other people's code in OpenCard, to add new features and to fix bugs. It will
quickly become impossible to determine who owns the intellectual property.
>>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)
Adrian: I disagree, we need to know in advance (as Alain said) which means before
*any* contributions are made, but since that's too late ASAP will have to 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?
Adrian: Because, they're guaranteed to sell some copies. Maybe they'll sell it under
a different name to confuse people. Either way, our work is being taken and used for
someone else's profit.
>>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
Adrian: What about those who will contribute in the future? We deserve a say as well,
after all our future contributions will have to be under the same licence.
Adrian: For me what this boils down to is if we choose a licencing agreement that I
agree with, I will continue to be a part of this collaboration and contribute where I
can, if not, I will unsubscribe from this mailing list and focus my attention on UFP
and other projects. I'm quite sure there are others who feel the same way. This is
the first of many issues that will be make or break for the group. If we can work
together and solve this problem, the outlook is good, if we keep putting this off
because it's too hard to agree on, then the project has almost no chance of succeding,
because there will be many issues like this in the future and we need to learn how to
make decisions on them.
