>First off, they are the same thing! Someone ultimately makes a derived
>work. I believe the under copyright law, a derived work gets its own
>copyright. (...)
>Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but is not a derived work a
>seperate work and a seperate copyright from the origonal work(s)?
But in that case the resulting copyright is dependant on the original
work. It's the same with patents: If the owner of the original work your
work's based on doesn't want it to be distributed, you can't either.
>Second, we need one person to make one product to call OPENCARD. A
>different person can make one product called OtherCard. But we should _not_
>have five people making something different under the same name.
That's OpenCard. -- We already agreed that we oughtta keep OpenCard the
end-user product separate from OpenCard the Open Source code. Only the UFP
distributes OpenCard, while the OpenCard sources are freely useable.
>> They could, but then it wouldn't be proprietary code anymore and we
>>wouldn't have that problem. What I'm saying is that if people integrate
>>code they don't want to share, they still should be obliged to ship along
>>the remaining code and offer a means to recompile it.
>
>What about the things distributed on floppy?
As you already noted, I changed my mind. I think we should have the
options you meantioned. Who wants, gives credit, who wants offers the
source for download, who has enough space and wants, ships along the
sources. ok?
>The MAINTAINER puts it out under a irrevocable, non-exclusive, perpetual
>licence -- LICENSE -- and if we use it according to that licence, there is
>not a dang thing he can do.
True, but having such a maintainer makes forking harder than if it's PD code.
>Ok. Do you just want PD with a nice trademark on the name?
>If so, I'll agree to it.
This is my choice so far -- though, would it be possible to have an
infinitely lasting license under copyright? That is, could we make
individually copyrighted freeware which gives the whole world the right to
use this freely, to sub-license at no charge, where we require they credit
us or make available the sources and don't sell the sources?
>You _don't_ transfer any rights to him. He has rights over a seperate work
>-- seperate from the filesystem, from the interpreter, from the UI, etc. --
>a work derived from those. All you do is allow him to use your work.
Well, if a lawyer sees it that way, I'm fine with that. Could you post
another proposal reflecting that change regarding shipping source so I can
re-read it in whole?
>They have to give an irrevocable license. As the proposal states: "LICENSE
>shall be perpetual, non-exclusive, and irrevocable."
OK. So we only need to decide on License, which, I think, should be:
FreeWare (same as PD but still copyrighted by the author to allow the
following)
Source code may not be sold, but may be distributed.
People using this source must do one of the below:
a) Include complete source code;
b) Tell where and how to get complete source code at a cost
no higher than duplication;
c) Tell where source can be downloaded at no charge; or
d) Give credit by saying:
"Made with OPENCARD. OPENCARD (c)1999 Whoever.
Available at http://ufp.uqam.ca/opencard"
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
