Hi All,
M. Uli Kusterer wrote, among other things:
>..original goal was to create a HyperCard that's
>not just fit for the next decade, but that also takes advantage of new
>system features and is cross-platform.
IMNSHO, IF the goal does NOT include something earth shattering too, then
you are not dreaming big enough, hence the endeavor is going to fail. People
NEED to see an UPSIDE to come aboard. Without a hope for a "killer app,"
then go home now. FWIW, however, I do feel that a new-age HyperCard that
goes out to multiple platforms with a suite of support and an open
institution HOME-Base is plenty for the "killer app" attractiveness.
- - - -
>In that regard, we want to establish
>an institution users can rely on -- an "official" OpenCard distribution
>site. If it takes a trademark to ensure nobody diverts or disturbs people
>by using the same name, we'll use it.
Humm, HyperCard has a trademark. HyperCard died. Trademarks don't insure
life. Furthermore, it can be mentioned in many ways that trademarks can
burden life. People who get trademarks want low-distrubances, hence they
won't want what name we've got. Few get trademarks to stifle others.
In an OPEN endeavor such as this, a trademark is a burden, IMHO. The
one-or-two steps of protections a trademark offers means five-or-more in
reverse, at many turns. For a corporate title, a trademark makes sense and
is prudent. For a community title -- doubtful as I view it.
As for the "institution" as an OpenCard Distribution, head scratching again.
Bazaar or Cathedral? Distributed distribution is necessary for a rich delta
of growth. Let's not fall into the trap of trying to be like Apple, or IBM
in the good old days. I'm not happy to give props to a company.
Then there is the "rely on" part. Scott at MetaCard is so on the ball that
he is someone to rely on, IMHO. I trust him, but one person does not make
for an institution, right? Want prompt support and cross-platform
capabilities, go to MetaCard. But, I want more. I would argue that MetaCard
can't be my "killer application" for our custom development needs, due to
its price, complexity and above all, its philosophy of being. Can't knock
its closed and proprietary state, but that is there and this is here. Sorry
to muddle about.
The real rely on part comes from within. Being open, being free is all about
self-reliance if need be. The broken elements of the software tool can be
fixed by me with the limits being one's own skill or one's ability to pay
for such skill and nothing more, as it is FREE and OPEN afterall. One does
not need to beg Apple or an IncWell-like owner for such and such bug fix or
feature request. Hence, I'll choose to rely on myself, the open-ness and
lean on the community as best as I'm able.
So, the part about users being able to rely on some institution is solved in
this endeavor by the user him/herself. Self-reliance is the ticket. In other
words, we don't need to establish much at all in order to get the goal of
being "reliable." A high bandwidth site, no big deal. The code, of course
that is a big deal. But, the license is even bigger in terms of hitting the
goal of getting users to rely on it without fears.
- - - -
> We're not trying to do philosophy here, leave that to people like Richard
>Stallman.
Doing anything is acting on philosophy. Frankly, I'm sorry to read of your
attitude. This project needs, IMHO, to stand on the shoulders of RS,
Mozilla, Free-BSD, etc., etc. --- with one foot, and on the shoulders of the
HyperCard entourage with the other.
>>How about an agreement to go forward to, say Jan 2002 under a "Public
>>Domain" license and a "non-Trademark" approach. Then at that time, we hold
>>an OpenCard summit of sorts. From there, folks who want to fork can do so
>>with grace and honor to the community.
>
> No. That wouldn't be free. Everybody is free to fork, anytime.
Disagree! Yes it is free. It is way free then. And, it is NOT to say that
one can't do otherwise before said date (Jan. 2002), but with distain.
Just to be more clear, my idea about a Jan. 2002 summit where we re-visit
anything and everything from new licenses, forking and trademarks with grace
is just an idea throw to the crowd. It is an action plan that takes a
back-seat to the driving philosophy of importance. That 2002 summit idea is
something I can live without, for sure, if objections and other better
solutions surface. Okay. However....
Forking early means death. I've been puzzled by the notion here where
"Forking" seems to be "grand" in some of these postings. Forking sucks.
Forking kills. Together we all are stronger. Forking early is stupid. If we
can delay forks for the first couple of years, we'll make much greater
strides.
Your desire for a safe tool is worthy and attractive. As I look at this
pursuit, the code elements and the tool itself is the nuts-and-bolts. Of
course we need great, iron-clad, visionary code and such. However, perhaps
the injection of "philosophy" into the process is like a dash of perfume. A
great body is one thing, but THEN the philosophy/perfume gets noticed, and
then, wow, one weakens at the knees. This makes heart-beats skip.
>>Much praise and notice will come to the endeavor if we all choose to "Walk
>>the Talk" and run with OpenCard as an inspired and fully open approach.
>
> Many people joined this out of an -- in my terminology -- egoist approach
>(I don't want to restart the discussion): They want to use OpenCard as a
>tool. At least this applies to me; a computer is a tool, as are
>applications. I don't care what my computer runs on, be it a box of
>hamsters or what-have-you. Me, and others, want to ensure their most
>valuable tool stays available. I do not plan to earn much praise for that,
>rather I want to get the job done. This requires organization, but I don't
>"dig" in such philosophy.
>
>
>Cheers,
>- -- M. Uli Kusterer
I'd like to see a chart of sorts listing all the PROs and CONs of operation
under a TradeMark.
Thanks for reading and responding.
Mark Ratuerkus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
