Sorry, it might be long.
I will try to [snip] what I do not want to discuss.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] makes some magical things to make me read
} Hi all,
}
} This is to keep you informed of the state and
} status of the SMSQ/E source code.
}
} The future licence-to-be has been a bit
} modified, notably to take into account the fact
} that test versions must be easily distributed.
} Here is the (still provisional) text. As usual,
} I invite all of you to comment.
}
} I have now received the source code from Tony
} Tebby, and, as soon as this licence is hammered
} out and I have had a chance to put everything in
} order, I'll start sending it out. I'm now taking
} orders.
Good! but I think you need an appendix which states:
- Who is the registar
- What is the address of the registar
- Who are the distributors/resellors (address and more also)
This way, you do not have to touch the statements when things change.
}
} Official statement
} ==================
}
}
} 1/ This software, called 'SMSQ/E', is copyright
} © Tony TEBBY.
I know you have better understanding of laws than me,
but I've always been told that:
- Copyright without a date is void. (How else would I get
a chance to wait for it to expire...)
- Copyright is only for USA, there is different protection
in Europ (including the Bern convention which acknoledge the
US copyright). Specifically, the statements should reserve
all the rights excepted the ones already mentionned.
(Just in case I want to make a movie out of the SMSQ/E,
currently, nothing stop me from:
- adapting
- broadcasting the play
- making DVD of the play
- distributing DVD of the play
- ...
)
[SNIP]
}
} 2/ SMSQ/E will be made available, as source code
} only, to any person who so requests it. The
} request must be made to the "registrar", i.e.
} me.
As I said, Put the 'i.e. me' in an appendix.
And provide your postal address too!
The post office should get a visit soon.
[SNIP]
} Except by prior
} agreement, binary, i.e. compiled, versions of
} SMSQ/E may not be distributed other than through
} the distributors.
Ok, That should fix the 'beta' distribution! But there
is later contradiction.
}
}
} 4/ The registrar, i.e. me, will maintain
} official distributions of SMSQ/E, in binary and
} source code form, one for each machine on which
} SMSQ/E may run.
That's define the obligations of the registrar,
but that's does not forbid someone else from doing
the same. Well, at least the resellors might also
provide support, but probably not debugging/correction ?
}
} 5/ Any person may make any
} changes/additions/modifications/adaptions to the
} source code he feels like. Any person may give
} away to others the modification he thus made,
} including the official distribution in source
} code form only, provided this is made ENTIRELY
} FOR FREE -
} no charges, not even copying charges, or charges
} for the media on which this is distributed,
} may be levied.
Good, there is nevertheless no obligation to distribute
the original source along with the change...
I'm afraid of the distribution of 'patched' sources only,
with divergent patches... Integration nightmare ?
}
} This distribution of the source code including
} the changes/additions/modifications/adaptions
} made by any author may not be made in electronic
} form other than on a physical disk.
Ok, no web, no email, no ftp, no BBS, no ...;
What's a disk ? floppy or CD ? would a Syquest elect ?
what about a Zip ? and a sinclair microdrive ? a DVD-R ?
What about QL network ? even via sernet ?
}
} Distribution of the changes/additions may be in
} binary(compiled) form, provided that the
} original and/or official version of SMSQ/E,
} which is copyright © T.Tebby, is not distributed
} in binary form as well.
}
There is restriction on the distribution of the source,
but I do not read there is such for the binary.
Moreover, the binary distribution seems to be allowed
until a ressellors make available an official versions
(without or with the change).
Was the intend to allow the distribution of a modified binary
by someone, as long as this someone does not also provide
the original or official version in binary too ?
[Pervert distribution: I change the default background to be
blue instead of black, and that's the only change, therefore
I'm allowed to charge big money for distribution of the binary,
or even to distribute the new binary on the web!]
Currently, the modified source is free and protected,
the modified binary need more restriction (at least for free and
distribution means) or I need confirmation about my silly thoughts.
}
} 6/ Any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions
} may be proposed by their author(s) to the
} registrar for inclusion in the official
} distributions of SMSQ/E.
Adding also in Appendix how such proposal should be made.
(expected format, will you give a confirmation, and so on)
[SNIP]
} When making such a proposal for inclusion, the
} author of the
} changes/additions/modifications/adaptions may
} state whether his contribution:
} - is to be distributed in the same way as the
} official version, or
} - is to be made only in the compiled (binary)
} form of the official distribution, or
} - is to be made alongside, but not included in,
} the official distribution.
Oh... source tree designed by a comittee...
management might turn to be difficult.
}
} Failing such a statement, the inclusion will be
} contained in the compiled and the source code
} versions.
Good default values!
} 8/ For testing purposes only, authors having
} made one or several
} changes/additions/modifications/adaptions of
} SMSQ/E may, as an exception to the prohibition
} of distributing code stemming from the official
} release version in binary form as mentioned
} above, give away binary version of their code,
} together with binary versions of SMSQ/E, to not
} more than 10 persons in total (whatever the
} number of test versions), provided that the
<Humor> Ok, let's start cloning myself, I want to distribute to the world!.
</Humor>
It's ok!
[SNIP]
}
}
} Finally, I would like to add a personal note:
}
} I have been approached privately by persons
} finding this licence unfair, for two reasons
} which haven't been aired in this list yet:
}
} 1/ When a new author adds some code to make
} SMSQ/E better, only the resellers (and Tony
} Tebby) see some profit from it.
I do not see any problem here.
If they were that smart, they would have redone SMSQ/E from nothing!
More probably, they will contribute to 1% of the works, and
Ego is paid by the acknoledgement (no ego-tax yet)!
} 2/ Authors making additions etc are still
} prohibited from distributing binary versions of
} SMSQ/E, even for free.
Unless for beta, if they clone themselves or are numerous
(if a class of a thousand people were to patch the source,
it gives a beta-distribution right of ten thousand copies!)
}
} This, some argued, will stifle the development
} of SMSQ/E since no author will agree to that.
Wrong. I can agree to that!
-- Grimbert Jérôme
