On Wed, 22 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote:
> Yes but it is not your concern as a reseller. I agree that we do not
> want to lose any contribution but some people will not contribute
> because they have already fixed an attitude which is against what we are
> doing. This has always been the way of things.
Criticism of this license is not criticism of you, or Jochen, or anyone
else involved in drafting it. It is a work which you hopefully consider to
be a work in progress. If you feel it should stand as it is, that's ok. If
it is adopted as is, people will walk elephants through the holes - let's
close those holes and make the letter match the intent?
> The licence does not exclude a developer writing some code that can be
> added to SMSQ/E as a module and which can be charged for as far as I
> know.
The license only specifies one mechanism for having code added to the
official SMSQ tree - to surrender the right to charge for it, remove it,
etc. If someone wishes to charge for a module, they are not given an
avenue to do so under the current wording, unless they keep their module
separate from the SMSQ binary distribution, which ensures marginal
adoption at best, and certainly encourages commercial developers to
further fragment the code base.
[snip large paragraph about why I know this is true from personal
experience]
[snip rest of my latest comments, for being philosophical and not really
pertinant to the issue at hand]
And maybe other people might like to exercise a little self-censorship
too, in the hope that we may lift this vital discussion up to a higher
level, where good things happen?
Dave
