On 22 May 2002, at 3:44, Dave wrote: > The point is that people can write new modules that carry out *existing* > module functionality, and distribute those, which actually increases the > fragmentation of SMSQ in a way that the registrar is unable to control, > because they would have no legal basis to do so. Even TT can't stop people > writing replacement sections of SMSQ.
Of course not. I wouldn't even try. Of course you can write replacement modules on your own, and distribute them. Not only that, once you have the source code, you can even write small patches, to get around some limitation or other, or whatever. There is NOTHING to force you to submit your code to the registrar. You CAN rewrite the whole OS. For me, the question is: why would you want to? Why not use your energy to make the existing even better, instead of reinventing the wheel? If your reply then is that you can't do that because of the licence as it stands right now, then I heartily disagree. The only thing you can't do under this licence is distribute the binaries - you can use them for testing purposes, which was one of your concerns. Why not let the resellers handle the distribution of binaries- hell, become a reseller yourself. If, on the other hand, you ansolutely want an OS with which you are entirely free to do whatever you want - OK, use Linux. > It's human nature - I am certain beyond all doubt that there will be a > thriving development scene for SMSQ, and 90% of it will be beyond the > reach and control of the registrar. A situation which I would regret - but I agree with you, there will always be those who won't be persuaded to collaborate. I don't belive, however, that 90 % of the development will be done in htis manner. > It would be in the majority of > developer's interest NOT to contribute their efforts, but to simply pad > out what is required and do a fee-based (not commercial, but fee-based, as > in resellers are not doing this commercially, but fee-based, think about > it ;) sorry, a fee-based what? Upgrade? > Finally, I would like to say, as a moderate critic, that if you doubt my > intentions, I would like you to consider my thinking for a brief moment. Why should I doubt your intentions? > One who truly cares about the future of the scene will care greatly about > what form this license takes. Yes, which is why I spend so much time on all of these emails. > Those who do not care, or to whom the > license is irrelevant, will remain silent. If I were a less honourable > person, I would not point out the obvious flaws and weaknesses, or jump > through the holes. I would leave them as wide open as possible and wait > until they're adopted. Don't think your comments aren't welcome. I was, and am, well aware that the possibility to sell or give away your own add-on modules exist. But, as long as these modules don't contain any part of the original source code, not only don't I care, I can't even see on what grounds (other than moral) I would have the right to care (as Tim Swenson also pointed out) : it's your code... However, when it boils down to what really seems to be THE main point of the discussion, there seems to be an unreconcilable rift between those who fundamentally object to the fact that only the resellers can distribute the binaries on the one hand, and those who, like me, don't really understand what the fuss is all about in this respect. I can only say that, if my job as registrar, which I can see now will take far more time than I thought, leaves me some spare time, then I do intend to have a look at the code, and try to do some work on it. And, once done, if only the resellers can distribute the binaries for it - I DON'T CARE the least bit in the world. > People may be critical, but that is a positive thing if someone's motives > are to improve the license for everyone's sake. I don't criticise anybody for criticising the licence. When things get personal, though, I object, someimes forcefully. >It's when a person tries > to change the license for their own benefit, or stays mysteriously quiet > that you have to worry. But how do you know that the person stays "mysteriously" quiet instead of just not intervening? :-) > Yours constructively Thanks! Wolfgang
