On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, you wrote:
> At 9:20 PM -0500 on 3/29/00, Mark Rauterkus wrote:
> >Hi All,
> >
> >We are talking about LINKING. I'm confused. And, I'm sorta going to lean to
> >derobert's views.
>
> I'm confused to. We're treading new territory, and no one knows. AFAIK,
> no open-source license has ever had a day in court; relativly few
> commercial ones have; and no one's ever created the mix of the
> GPL-open-source and propriety software like we're trying to.
>
> We do have a few things to argue:
> 1) Is a work that absolutely requires another, and is built and used
> only with another, a derivative work?
> 2) If not, does it become a derivative work if it must use code from
> that other project?
>
> FreeCard stacks absolutely require FreeCard, are built with FreeCard,
> are used only with FreeCard, and require code from FreeCard to run. A
> good argument could be made both ways. Standalones are placed in a file
> with FreeCard.
Adrian: From the point of view of being able to give MetaCard our home stack to
use - we don't have to worry about those issues. We just have to say to Scott,
this is our licence, can we make a deal? If he says, "No, I need this
provision in the licence" then we consider it and add it if nessecary.
Adrian: Since with Uli's proposed licence we specifically exclude standalones
from being derivitive products this isn't an issue for comercial developers
using FreeCard. (We could add a statement declaring stacks to be
non-derivitive works if needed). Taking this into consideration, why are we
discussing this? We have wasted so much time going around in circles on this
licencing issues. We need to decide it asap, if this conversation isn't moving
us forward, we need to stop it (or move it elsewhere and keep FreeCard moving).
