On Fri, 6 Aug 1999 "Michael Fair"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just wanted to clarify a point that I think was misunderstood.
>
> >On Fri, 6 Aug 1999 DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> At 5:16 AM -0700 on 8/5/99, Michael Fair wrote:
> >>
> >> All he said is that your appending to the GNU GPL would leave a gaping
> >> loophole and that, if you wish to do that, just distribute it as public
> >> domain because that is the end result of the modification.
> >
> >Exactly.
>
> I disagree.
> The difference between a modified GPL and Public Domain
> would be that "UltraCard" could not distribute the source code,
> stack files, or scripts to its product as long as it used the source
> code, stack files, or scripts from OpenCard.
The stacks and scripts would be bundled together into the standalone,
so they *could* distribute those at will. As for the source code, why
would they *want* to distribute that?
> They would be
> restricted to just releasing one binary executable with as many
> stacks as they could stuff in it and any stacks they personally
> developed. The individual source code files for the OpenCard product
> and the binary OpenCard.exe remain under the full GPL offering all
> the protections thereof.
Right, but who would *want* to distribute that? They'd just take the
source code, modifying it however they want even, and then build a
standalone. Poof, all protection disappears!
> I was unsuccessful at proving that standalone executables produced
> from the OpenCard application are not derived works. The solution
> to that was to explicitly declare standalone executables "not derived
> works" thereby granting companies and individuals the right to keep
> all stack files and scripts copyrighted to themselves and distribute a
> binary executable to their customers without fear of losing their
> intellectual property.
This is an important feature. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to
allow under GPL or LGPL. Which is why I think Artistic, X11/BSD, or
PD would be better. After reading the article referenced on this list
awhile back, my opinion has shifted somewhat more toward X11/BSD and
away from Artistic as the ideal license for open source projects
(there seem to be too many legal gray areas with Artistic).
> This is distinct from the Public Domain where the source code
> to the OpenCard executable would indeed be Public Domain
> and have no gaurantees as to its modification or distribution.
As long as you put no restrictions on the release of standalones, your
license is functionally equivalent to PD IMHO. X11/BSD (and Artistic)
would offer better protection because at least with those the
developer would be required to give copyright credit to the original
distribution because you wouldn't have to special-case standalones.
Regards,
Scott
> - -- Michael --
********************************************************
Scott Raney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metacard.com
MetaCard: You know, there's an easier way to do that...
