On Wed, 22 May 2002, ZN wrote:
> OK, this has now officially gone well into the ridiculous.
In some quarters, yes...
> The fact of the matter is, this argument over the licence is pointless
> because no one can nor should win it, because it's the wrong argument.
Some people are trying to win arguments. Some people are trying to express
concerns...
> The part that they should contribute are the changes necessary to have
> this support as an external module, AND THAT'S IT.
So who develops the kernel?
> Under the licence, nothing prevents anyone from rewriting the whole thing
> based on the source, and then doing anything you please with it. As long as
> you don't submit it to the registrar and it's not added to the official
> release, it is not covered by the licence.
Aye. And if I send 100 Euros to TT, I can get SMSQ, mod it any way I see
fit, and sell those new versions under the first sale doctrine, outside of
the license, as they're licensed copies. Can of worms. :/
> The registrar will, if something really happens with all this and things do
> take off, find himself overwhelmed with the task of actually having to know
> and understand intimately every nook and cranny of the SMSQ sources, in
> order to make decisions about it.
And have the ability to test it on any and every hardware combination, or
on hardware that may itself be under development and changing ten times a
day.
I agree with you 'mostly', that the emphasis of debate is on the wrong
things, but the things you discuss are not worded in the license, and the
things that *are* worded in the license are the rules under which we must
work.
It is only natural for someone to try and get the best working environment
possible, be they user, developer, reseller or God! ;)
Dave
