On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote: > freely distributable sources). SMSQ/E is modular so adding an extra > commercial package to it would be easy. It is less hard to remove part > of it and that is something we have all discussed. The practicalities of > someone writing, say, a new file manager with longer filename (oh no, > not that again!) and then selling that as a commercial add on are > something we want to discuss. We should be able to make this fit both > models. I think this is the way most people would go. Obtain the sources, and use them to gain insight into SMSQ, then reproduce each modular section and release it under the GPL, until the entire OS has been replicated in a GPL'd version. As a half-way step to this, people can accept the distribution side of the license to receive the source, then produce new self-contained replacement modules which they can sell. Nothing in the license prevents someone from making replacement modules. Obviously this is against the intent of the license, but as the code was not submitted to the registrar, it is distributable outside of the original license, as long as the module contains no original SMSQ code and is therefore not a derivitive work
But then, that would mean the license is encouraging people to behave in a way contrary to what was intended. Dave
