>> I completely agree. Even though I'd even work with a PD license, I'd
>>prefer if we required clones to make their users aware of OpenCard.
>
>I quote: "Instead, I'd prefer if we just made ownership unimportant by
>making people lay down their rights and make their code available to the
>public for
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>free. Everyone can use that version, improve on it etc., and if someone
>wants to create proprietary software from their copy, that doesn't hurt us."
>
>No comment.
Then let me comment: I said (and I'm still saying this) I would prefer if
we didn't go PD and instead found a way to make people recognize OpenCard
and all the programnmers working on it.
But if I have to make it PD to have OpenCard available for everyone, I'll
do that, and at the moment it looks like that's necessary.
>Giving credit is a very nice thing to do. And anyone with the source would
>certainly know: The proposal does not allow removal of copyright notices.
Yes. But who of the casual users will actually look at the sources? And
the sources might quickly bloat the product to a huge size if we required
shipping it along. Now imagine a company that does children's games. They
create one using a modified OC (throwing out parts, adding in some more
sound and aimation features to keep children hooked) and save it as a
standalone and it uses 1MB. Now they distribute it to schools, and have to
ship along 20 MB of source code and resource files with that, even though
they know that none of the children that get this will have a use for them.
For such cases I'd prefer if we just offered them the option to prominently
tell their users this is based on OpenCard and where to get OC.
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
