Eric Engle: If we want to create a partnership just
let me know.
Alain: We have eliminated incorporation, that's for
sure. We had also eliminated a formal partnership that
would make each one of us liable for all of the
others. It was pointed out that a partnership was
useless anyway because we are not doing any
'business'. In the end, we were leaning towards some
kind of free-association-of-like-minded-individuals,
akin to the Quakers and other friendly organizations.
Alain: The difference between the inner-circle
(otherwise known as 'partners') and the outer-circle
(otherwise known as 'associates') is that the
inner-circle has final say on the organizational and
technological direction(s) of the FreeCard
organization and its software.
Alain: I do not envision that the inner-circle will
become some group of managers that boss around the
outer-circle, as in a traditional hierarchical
company. I envision the role of the inner-circle
(senators) as more senatorial than legislative or
dictatorial. In other words (layman terms), everyone
participates in all of the functions of our
organization, including its decision-making. The
senators only step in to make sure that new
'legislation' does not upset the integrity of existing
legislation, does not subvert the constitution, and is
in the best-interest of all involved.
Alain: This senatorial approach is not susceptible to
be subverted by Majority-Rule. For, if a majority
tried to force through an idea that a vocal minority
just cannot accept, then the senators would step in.
Eric Engle: (the subject has been quiet, which is
good, i prefer action to talk).
Alain: Cooling down periods are indeed desirable when
issues are important, complex and hard-to-resolve in
one sitting. It gives people time to rest, time to let
the various issues to sink in, to break out of the
struggles to win-the-argument versus
doing-what-is-best that occur sometimes in any group.
Alain: Personally, I am also glad that we took a break
from these issues because I have been insanely busy
with my entreprise and its new web-site generating
system.
Mark Rauterkus: I prefer prior planning (talk) so as
to prevent poor performances (mis-guided actions).
Alain: Most definitely. Quite right.
Mark Rauterkus: I think that the early stab at the
partnership agreement was great fuel for the
discussions ...
Alain: I wholeheartedly agree. Those discussions were
far from useless. We have an idea of the breadth and
depth of the issues. We substantially know where we
stand on each issue. We have the beginnings of a
viable voting process. And so on.
Mark Rauterkus: ... but not where we should be headed.
Alain: Where should be headed, Mark?
Mark Rauterkus: We still have 350-degrees of choices
to choose or eliminate. =;0
Alain: While none of the alternatives have been
officially eliminated or mandated yet, I am confident
that we are not far from an agreement that will
satisfy everyone's needs.
Alain: 1. The licencing of FreeCard will ressemble
Public domain, in most regards, except for our
stipulation that the FreeCard software be clearly
labeled as FreeCard's (recognition). The pseudo
company MicroSloth can thus NOT take FreeCard and
re-label it 'MS' or something like that. A second
stipulation of ours will be that the user must be
informed that the source code is available free, and
where (if possible).
Alain: 2. We want to allow a commercial enterprise
(any) to re-sale FreeCard, as-is or in a value-added
form (at the vendor's discretion), for profit. We
expect that the price charged for this 'convenience'
and/or value-added will be low (affordable),
particularly if FreeCard is sold as-is, but no formal
action will be taken on our part to impose any kind of
pricing structure, or to restrict who can re-sale
FreeCard.
Alain: 3. Apart from the recognition factor, so far we
could get by with 100%-public-domain. But the
public-domain presents another risk that makes me
almost sure that we will reject 100%-PD. The risk I
speak of is the possibility of being taken-over by an
opportunistic commercial enterprise that will exploit
our source code, at no cost, and make their version a
proprietary one. Furthermore, that we will not be able
to effectively compete with their version because of
the commercial enterprise's capitalization, influence,
and so on. This risk is what makes public-domain
un-acceptable, and makes GPL-like licences
interesting.
Alain: 4. GPL-like licences, you see, would stipulate
that FreeCard and derivatives-thereof (forks) would
have to remain free and open, forever. This
effectively protects us from a takeover, but it might
also scare away some FreeCard(-based) developers,
especially if these developers wish to make a profit
with their derived work and/or protect the secrecy
(advantage) of their original work which is based upon
FreeCard.
Alain: 5. So one of the central issues that we have to
resolve is what is to be considered a 'derived' work?
(e.g. that will be subject to our licencing
conditions).
Alain: 5a. Perl's artistic licence does not prevent a
Perl-programmer from commercially selling his
Perl-wares in a proprietary manner. And so it should
be with FreeScript.
Alain: 5b. FreeCard will be an authoring system. Any
stack authored with FreeCard should be licence-free.
It is akin to a word-processor versus the documents
that you create with the word-processor.
Alain: 5c. FreeCard stacks need the FreeCard
application in order to run (obviously). Any user can
obtain the entire FreeCard standard distribution
package, thru the normal channels, but they may not
want the ENTIRE thing and they may not care for
source-code if they are not programmers. So I suggest
that we provide them with a free (and
freely-distributable) FreeCard-Player. This tactic is
akin to Adobe's tactic with regard to Acrobat Reader.
Alain: 6. The third tactic for providing the FreeCard
application is the controversial one that I have been
suggesting since the beginning: Do like HyperCard does
in this regard (e.g. save a copy of a stack as
licence-free standalone). It is controversial because
it blurs the distinction between document and
application that is necessary to maintain if we do not
wish our works to be considered 'derived' works, and
thus have our FC-related work subject to FreeCard's
GPL-like licencing conditions (e.g. to remain free and
open).
Mark Rauterkus: I promise to deliver a new direction
for the partnership discussion within a week.
Alain: New input and/or commentary about existing
inputs are definitely welcome. The discussion/debate
is still raging on, for now.
Mark Rauterkus: I think we have a chicken-and-egg
thing with the partnership agreement at this juncture.
People can't let you know unless they know what is
what.
Alain: I guess that you are right, because I for one
cannot become a FreeCard partner/senator/etc until I
know what I am getting into. Once I substantially know
what the general framework and specific details are,
and my role and responsibilities, and so on .. then I
will be able to proceed.
Mark Rauterkus: Being unsure is fine for now, IMHO.
Alain: Certainties are few are far between, even in in
Life itself.
Eric Engle: Note that being a partner would be a real
chore -so again i can easily exclude myself from such
a position if that is preferable.
Alain: A telling example of what can happen if and
when we make the 'partners' position too demanding
and/or risky in some way (liability). No one will
volunteer, and our group with become head-less.
Mark Rauterkus: To be a partner or NOT --- well it is
most preferable if YOU decide, not anyone else. That
is your choice I'd say.
Alain: We can't force someone to be a partner, that's
for sure! But their inclusion in the partnership will
not be their decision alone. The existing partners
must signal their approval -- the approval process
could be unanimity, consensus, majority, etc. For now,
the choice of approval-process(es) is still wide open,
I think.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
