On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: > Dexter wrote: > > That was not obvious. Now I know that, I am very disappointed. > > Why?
Because I pictured it that TT had chosen a license structure and chosen three trusted people to execute it for him, Instead, he passed that role to someone he trusts, and that one person plus two resellers seem to have given themselves all the control... It's not fact - it's an impression. It's all about how it looks. > I did not write the licence but I'm one of the people who drafted the > spirit of how it should be. And in my opinion giving away a modified > version to somebody who already owns SMSQ/E is ok. At least for the > versions Tony has the sole copyright for (all except QPC so far). In > the future there might be other versions that incorporates copyrighted > parts of other people (like an Aurora driver). Of course a modified > version of that can't be given away to somebody who did not previously > acquire the other copyrighted part. > > Or shorter: if the person who receives the modified binary legally > owns the version the modification is based on it is ok. That would completely remove my "devil's advocate" concerns. It's a very fair way of making sure the right license fees are paid by the right people at the right time. > > That may not be what is intended, but that is what the license says. > > If that's the case it should be changed. A minor rewrite of clarification or expansion would be nice. Dave
