At 1:58 PM -0800 on 1/18/00, Alain Farmer wrote:
>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).
We can certainly say that FreeCard standalones are free of FreeCard
licencing requirements, but this opens a LARGE loophole in anything
else.
>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.
Alain, at the top of this messages didn't you say we decided against a
partnersip?! I'm now confused :(
"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...."
