> a) Release it under a different name; and
> b) preferably (but optinally) Give credit
Anthony,
We should make sure no markings (like copyright notes etc.) are removed
from the sources. We can ask that much.
> OPENCARD shall mean a certain product being created by OODL in order
> to be a new, OpenSource, HyperCard-like product.
Much better than "replacing" HC.
>I propose that there shall be a single MAINTAINER, and he shall be elected
>by the the majority of the members of the OODL list, and that he shall be
>liable to impeachment by two thirds of the same.
We should also make sure impeachment can intercept current decisions of
the maintainer, shouldn't we? I mean, when the maintainer makes a decision
nobody but himself agrees to, we should be able to say: more than 2/3 say
no to this, you're out.
>I propose that any person writing code for inclusion in OPENCARD must do so
>under LICENCE.
Definitely. Any source submitted to OpenCard development should
automatically be under LICENCE. Else we'll be in lots of trouble.
>I propose that MAINTAINER shall gather code under LICENCE and combine them
>to form OPENCARD. I further propose that MAINTAINER or his designee shall
>write or callaborate to have written any neccisarry code to glue together
>different parts, and to have that code released under LICENCE.
This means the MAINTAINER may appoint a programmer to write this code if
he isn't able to write the code, right? This is certainly necessary, I
don't want the office of the MAINTAINER to be restricted to programmers.
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
