on 21/3/00 10:37 AM, Mark Rauterkus at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>> 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...
>
> I beg to differ Adrian. I think DeRobertis is correct. (Of course, who says
> what isn't important -- just that we get the right ideas put forth and
> understood.)
>
> The original author can do what he/she/they want. And doing what one wants
> can be MULTIPLE releases with MULTIPLE licenses, even including the GPL.
Adrian: And at this point the problem arises. Who is the original author?
We've discussed this at length and it will quickly become impossible to get
"the author"'s permission for anything. Don't count on getting it. I also
don't think we should dual release as that splits the workforce. Also,
MetaCard should have no problem complying with the GPL as they would simply
package our Home Stack with their distribution in the "Alternate Home
Stacks" folder like HyperCard provided. They would still provide their
normal Home stack. Also, the Home stack is never mixed with proprietary
code, it is just run by the engine. Perhaps making it into a MetaCard
standalone will have to be ruled out, but that's not a problem.
>>> 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.
>
> Hummm. Since we had a disagreement on what was POTENTIAL above, its hard to
> do anything but ignore what follows. However, I do think it is important to
> think and talk it through, slaving over the details, so as to get the
> desired synergy with MC AND the "something great" too.
Adrian: I agree. This should be discussed fully, but I stand by the fact
that MetaCard shouldn't be a topic of discussion.
> Mark Rauterkus
Adrian Sutton
**************************************************************
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 3714 4649
It is better to support schools than jails.
-- Mark Twain.
**************************************************************
