On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, DeRobertis wrote:
> We deliver Scott his UI under any licence he wants. Just because we
> licence something under the GPL to someone, does not mean we can't
> licence it to someone else under another licence.
Adrian: Actually, by licencing something under the GPL it means that we
have to continue to licence it under the GPL - no other licence is
compatible with the GPL. The GPL will allow other licences to be changed
to it, but once something is under the GPL, it is under the GPL for good.
Besides, if we gave the stack to Scott under a different licence, he would
distribute it under a different licence, and so on...
> And it'd be pretty hard for Scott not to include source code for the
> home stack we give him, so he'd be complying with the GPL anyway.
Adrian: At this stage, I don't think it is important to consider how the
choice of licence affects our arrangements with MetaCard. We choose a
licence that provides the freedom and protection that we want - then if
MetaCard want to make an agreement with us under those terms, we discuss
it then. Changing our aims for the licence because it might increase
development time isn't wise. It's better to take longer to achieve
something great, instead of quicker to create something poor.
