>#2. We do everything and anything we can to get a massive (the rest of us)
>influx of folks using and co-developing FreeCard. To do this, IMSNHO, we are
>going to want to use as much leverage as possible, and this might include
>using all of our options with various flavors of licenses. A second or a
>third license release that covers our flanks and can greatly appeal to more
>of the unwashed is something that I'm hopefull we'll all understand and
>agree to in deployment and execution.
Trouble is: How far do we want to go? I think our 'FC-GPL' allows
everything we want to allow. If someone disagrees, tell me now while we can
still fix it. I don't want to make FC PD just so more people can work on
it, because people that want to contribute will be likely satisfied with
what we offer them, and those who aren't satisfied with the rights we grant
them likely wouldn't want to share anyway.
I doubt a change of licence will get us more developers. More users maybe,
but not likely more developers. Other licences are an option, but it
shouldn't be the usual case, it should happen under exceptional
circumstances. If Scott thinks our GPL would cause any problems when he
wants to ship FreeUI along with MetaCard, I'm sure he would tell us about
it to give us the opportunity to fix the licence. IIRC a GPLed FreeCard
stack can be converted into a MetaCard stack, but it would be required to
stay under the GPL. But MC wouldn't become a GPLed product because it runs
this stack. As long as the stack doesn't come password-protected it
wouldn't be a problem.
In MC's case, there would have to be a home stack that doesn't contain any
editor, so the licensed home stack could still be protected, but that's
all. It will work without a change in licensing. What's the problem?
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
