At 3:46 PM -0700 on 7/11/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
>Uli : There are few people which are interested in C++ source code,
>especially among the users of a product like OpenCard.
>
>Alain : You're absolutely right. There are even some of its developers,
>like myself, that have no interest in C source code. The goal of
>OpenCard, as it was for its predecessor HyperCard, is to make software
>development insanely easy. In most peoples definition that includes the
>doing as little scripting as possible.
How about we allow a statement about where you can download the source code?
>Uli : Also, for that they'd get all the work we put into OC for free.
>
>Alain : If that's not altruistic, then I don't know what is! ;-)
And we'd get all the work all the other hundreds of people put into it for
free, too. I won't comment on the "altruistic" part, because I think I've
already addressed that.
>
>Uli : I was talking about the clause that you have to distribute this
>stuff with sources or object to allow re-linking. This sounds to me
>like this would allow that people ship the OC sources and a statically
>linkable library of their code, thus allowing everyone to change OC's
>sources and to then re-link with the static library to improve the OC
>half of the product. I can't see any other reason why they'd put in
>that clause.
That is the idea.
>
>Uli : If that works, it doesn't sound bad. But I don't want any virus
>spreading.
>
>Alain : e.g. OC licence does not affect proprietary products developed
>with it.
But any GNU licences do.
>Alain : No matter what scheme we eventually adopt, there will always be
>a potential for mis-use. Some people are bad, most people are good. No
>... I don't want to debate this last point! ;)
I think I've already agreed with it :)
>
>Uli : ... but there'd still be people who'd send in the sources.
>
>Alain : Altruism lives! (sorry i couldn't resist)
Because they'd want to make sure the next version did not break their
changes, as Uli has noted before.
