>Alain : Why the graphics ? Why just the graphics ?
I didn't mean this to be an exclusive statement. Of course any other
media, like Sounds or what-have-you should be licensed this way, too.
Graphics are just the most commonly used ones (I'm sure more of you have
used HyperCard's icons and the "Art Bits" stack than have used e.g. the
sample QT movie that came with it.
>Alain : I am not dead-set against it. Other outfits have done similar
>things, like RedHat for example. But, in my opinion, it is somewhat
>opportunistic to re-package something free and sell it, particularly if
>the person doing the reselling had nothing to do with its development.
>Hence, I suggest that we limit the resale rights to those who have
>participated in its development.
I think there is a definitive future in companies that do packaging and
distribution of Open Source SW, and I believe that this will open doors to
OC it wouldn't reach otherwise. As an Open Source community we won' be able
to provide support the way a company can; no hotline, no trained support
technicians...
Also, many big companies, universities and schools won't use a free Open
Source product, they require their developers to buy supported products.
Also, they think that products that don't cost money are bad -- this is
called "perceived value". If we allowed such distributors (of course they'd
only be allowed to charge for what they actually did, they're not allowed
to charge $1000 for simply burning a CD-ROM with a compiled OpenCard binary
on it) we could sort of "trick" some of these users to at least consider
OC. Then they'll learn what Open Source is about.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
--- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
