At 09:20 �� 15/3/2002, you wrote: >On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > > >Ok, now I am totally confused. Open source has a very specific meaning. >And this isn't it. If the source isn't going to be generally available, it >isn't open source, and you shouldn't call it that.
I agree with Dave, Open Source is open to anybody to download and modify according to their needs. HOWEVER in order to make ANY modification a part of the official source tree it has to be approved by the registrar and the governing body... The difference is that a non-approved modification ceases to be called SMSQ/E anyway. As for potential revenue on making SMSQ/E opensource it's even greater than it is now... The reason being SMSQ/E can be sold as the full sources (I doubt it that many QL users willing to just fiddle with it have a fast connection so they can download it (with the exception of handful people me included)) on a CD, revenues of which can fund the registrar and the main distributor of the product (Jochen). Not only that but a project like that if broken down in several subprojects, has the potential for even greater revenue... Eg a SMSQ/E spinoff (say... SMSQ/EE -embedded-) could be licensed afterwards without "killing" its open source status. Definitely some "fine tuning" on the terms of a license is needed in order to benefit everyone and ensure continuation of SMSQ in perpetuity ;-) but that can be arranged with understanding, lots of talk and a nice consensus :-) Phoebus
