Here's my problem with that.
If you place a restriction on someone then you are
now responsible for monitoring and policing that
restriction.
How about this.
"We don't care what you do with the sources. You may
sell them, package them, give them away, or heck, use
them to prevent your new puppy from making a mess.
But you may in no way prevent anyone you distribute
the sources to from redistributing them with complete
freedom."
It's at the heart of Open Source. It requires no policing,
and should anyone decide to actually "sell" the OT
sources, it's a really dumb move because anyone they
sell them to could turn around and give them away
for free. At the same time, anyone who uses OT is
going to know that they could get the sources for free
from someone else and start yelling how lame Mr. X
is for attempting to sell the OT sources.
Now we run into a sticky situation here that I didn't
see before. Company X pays Company Y lots of money
for a license to the sources of "Proprietary Technology."
Company X would like to relase a plugin, or a modified
version of OT that includes support for "Proprietary
Technoloy." It would make sense that the proprietary
portions of the new OT should be binary only.
This, I believe, is a great case for some kind of a
run-time module plugin system. There probably isn't
much difference between this and shared libraries,
however it would probably be easier to say "Stick
this file in your 'Plugins' directory of OT."
Rob Cozens wrote:
> Uli:
>
> >I think we should allow everyone to distribute
> >OpenCard, but no one should be allowed to sell the OC sources, only
> >value-added services (pressing on CD, support, ...)
>
> Rob:
>
> Me too.
>
> Rob Cozens, CCW
> http://www.serendipitysoftware.com/who.html
>
> "And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
> Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
>
> from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
