Ok, i already sent this as an enclosure - did not realize that was problematic. Ideas regarding names and partnership Ok, regarding names: HyperCard was probably weakened by the name "hyper" - no one could take it particularly seriously. We could also consider names involving 'page' - as the site/page metaphor has prevailed over the card/stack metaphor: why fight the collective unconsciousness? If Apple is really thinking of dumping HC (i doubt it) then maybe we can ask them to take it over for them? They already tried spinning HC off to Claris (unsuccesfully) and also tried to spin and sell of the Newton before they just dropped it. Again, this could be turned into a charitable write off for apple if we then license the program to schools. Personally, I doubt apple will dump HC but I also am not expacting HC-III any time soon : so maybe we can talk them into licensing/sharing source code with us? I have no problem sharing source code with end users per se, but once we do it is no longer trade secret and can be used by anyone commercially or otherwise. Also nu in french means naked, so i do not think nuCard is such a good idea... VolksCard would also lead to confusion? I mean, really, its neither a car, nor a political nightmare... It would be nice to integrate WWW with openKard as much as possible... (I am writing a _very primitive HTML editor using HT) Someone's trying to draw up a HC interpreter for Java - only good on PPCs though... There are lots of HTML externals. Really, apple's marketing of HC is (another) case study of a brilliant idea which is failing... If it were possible to cross platforming the HC externals that would be nice... Does MetaCard have any insights on this? Names? freePage? freeCard? ezPage? ezCard? multiPage? multiCard? basicCard? basicPage? Regarding TM - maybe we can talk metaCard into paying the TM fee? This can be done via a contract with not partnership. Also, do people oppose/support/indifferent a partnership with metaCard? This could be useful. In any event metaCard should know that our efforts could constitute a charity, (i.e. free distribution of openKard to schools) and thus would permit them a charitable tax write off for incurred expenses. (if metaCard or Apple want details on the tax aspects, please ask for I have an LLM in tax law...). That said, I would say our relationship with metaCard should not be a partnership unless we expressly enter into such relationship in writing - which MC may not want to do anyway, so this could all be moot. Other notes on TM: Well, if MC won't pay the 300-500 dollar filing fee for trade mark then we have to go it alone. And I doubt anyone is willing to shell out for it. In that case we would be obliged to use common law protection, which is, indeed, much weaker. With federal registration comes : a presumption of notice to others. Triple damages for misappropriation, and the infringer pays the attorneys fees and costs if the infringer acted in bad faith. But, really, I think that the license and trade mark issues are actually secondary to the partnership question. I have the licenses, and believe I know what we want. While I prefere registering if we have to use common law protection (which is _much weaker) so be it. But I would like to focus first on the partnership question: I would like to suggest two levels of membership: partner, and associate. Associates would be able to come and go as they please, and have no liability or responsability. In exchange for a reasonable amount of work they would be able to keep a copy of the metaCard engine, plus mention in the credits. Partners would have decision making authority: they would have to agree unanimously before admitting a new partner. All persons (associates and partners) would have to agree to change the partnership agreement. Partners would determine whether the associate has done enough work to merit the engine. The partnership would be a charitable organization. Anyone may ask to enter into the association. Admission would be based on a majority vote of partners and associates, based upon the contribution offered by the associate. Since unanimity of all persons (partners and associates) is required to change the partnership agreement, do not expect the agreeement to be changeable - a single no would act as a veto. Advantage: guarantees the organization stays charitable. Which is also its disadvantage if you later decide you want to make money after all (at that point forking or splitting comes up - the partnership agreement would neither encourage nor prohibit splitting or forking). Again, MC probably should _not be a partner. We can, in theory, get anything we want from them via contracts. So, what do you think? The licenses will have to be approved by the partnership to be formed - and they really are pretty straight forward (though unfortunately one line will not suffice - a page would).Any contract between the partnership and MC will be better negotiated (plus we will look more serious). By using unanimity of decision and two levels you obtain the protection (for associates) and stability and coherence (of partners) required for this project. I am rather enthusiastic and want to draft the partnership agreement but cannot do so until we determine the exact (and really it has to be a precise decision) structure of the partnership. I would like it all to be based on consensus - but different people will have different levels of commitment, and in the end some central decision making has to be done. If anyone has suggestions that are more concrete, practicable, or more fair, please speak up! ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
