At 5:07 PM +0100 on 11/13/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
>>Alain: Let's be clear that the issue is whether
>>OpenKard derivatives (forks) can fork commercially or
>>whether it is in our best interest to insist in
>>writing that OpenKard derivatives must remain free and
>>open, like GPL does. That licencing-restriction would
>>prevent MicroSloth from turning their fork into
>>something non-free, non-open, proprietary.
>
>Alain, Anthony,
>
> this is exactly what I'm thinking about, too; I don't mind people selling
>products created *with* OpenCard, and I don't mind other open-source
>OpenCards popping up. What I *do* mind if someone sells OpenCard without
>acknowledging that there's this open source version of it, and people who
>try to sell the sources making lots of money from others' work.
I'd love to have legal lingo to require OpenCard to remain open-source,
provided:
It applies to the engine only -- not stacks.
It does NOT spread like a virus, like the GPL.
It does not apply to standalones.
I'm thinking something along the lines of any changes made to the engine's
source must be released under the NuCard OpenSource licence.
Further, it should be GPL-, Artistic-, and BSD-compatible.
>
> However, I don't mind people earning money by DLing OC and saving it on a
>CD-Rom or things like that, as long as the price charged is proportional to
>the work they did. That is, selling a CD-ROM for $40 is still acceptable,
>but charging $1000 for an OpenCard distribution should be illegal.
How do you define "reasonable" objectivly? You can't. You can try things
like "acceptable to most people" or such, but they're subjective. You can
try $x, but that causes problems with inflation and such.
Ultimately: If I can pay $40 for NuCard, or download it for free, there is
NO WAY IN HELL I'm paying $1,000. The market will take care of itself; you
can't sell free software for $1,000 because someone will undersell you.
>
> However, it's a blurry line between selling your own product and selling
>OpenCard. That's why I'd say if people advertise "includes OpenCard" or the
>likes, they are selling OpenCard, while a simple logo "realized using
>OpenCard" means they're selling a product created using OC.
Wow -- what a great test. Most subjective test I can think of -- if we
think you're selling it, you are; if we don't, you're not. Have a good day
in court showing that they are selling it, while a company doing simular is
not :)
