On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 "Mark Rauterkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the most important objectives we arrived at during discussion
> >(correct me anyone if I'm wrong):
> >
> > - OpenKard, including the sources, must be forever free
>
> To be forever free, one does not choose a Public Domain license. The forever
> part is something often called, "TAINTING."
>
> The GNU license is tainted. Those titles are free today and must stay in a
> free form (GNU-ish) for the future as well.
>
> To favor "SPLITTING" the source -- one would want to split to a commercial
> as well as a non-commercial flavor as well. Some here sorta like the idea of
> splitting -- and keeping those options open for the future. Personally, I
> hate the ideas of splitting.
>
> I like GNU for OPEN-Kard, sure. But I love Public Domain too. I do think
> that we should not stress the forever parts if we go PD, as it is just not
> true.
PD *is* forever free. It just doesn't force all derivative products
(which includes commercial products built on the "OPEN-Kard" engine)
to be free like GNU licenses do.
> > This is what the GNU license doesn't explicitly do. It contains a clause
> >which could be interpreted to mean that both OpenKard and any stack made
> >with it (or at least OpenKard standalones) must be under the GNU license
> >again, which prohibits selling it. That's the reason why we think we need
> >another license.
>
> Humm. I don't think so. First off, selling of GNU items is okay. The
> choke-point is to release the source of stand-alone stackes, IMHO. Right?
That, and the requirement that the source code to the engine be
distributed with the product, and that all copyright information for
any commercial product that uses any part of "OPEN-Kard" divulge this
fact. Even the less restrictive LGPL requires the latter two, and
either requirement would make producing a commercial product with
"OPEN-Kard" pretty unattractive.
> But, I think it would be something more to explore the idea that a all
> products made from the tool that is of a GNU item are in-fact FREE too. I
> think not. Case in point: GNU has a "C" compiler application. One can write
> a commercial software title with the GNU "C" tool, and not have the software
> title be GNUed. But, if one changes the "C" software tool, that is not
> allowed without some strings. So, you can make a widget that crafted with
> FREE tools and have the widget be "closed" and "NON-FREE."
You're missing a fundamental point here: when you distribute something
built with a C compiler, no part of the C compiler is in the product.
This kind of separation is impossible to achieve with any
HyperCard-like product.
> I think we would be able to walk a fine line and use the GNU application
> license for the authoring tool and NOT need to have all the associated
> stacks that a developer ships to end users be part of the GNU package. ---
> BUT, this needs a fully functional understanding of the license types and
> such, and I'm not sure we are there yet -- nor want to go there even. I've
> got my own questions still lurking..... Expert GNU/License advice sorta
> needed.
I think what we need here is to not have people who either didn't read
or didn't understand the discussions over the last few months dragging
up old problems that have already been solved!
Regards,
Scott
> Mark Rauterkus
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
********************************************************
Scott Raney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metacard.com
MetaCard: You know, there's an easier way to do that...
