In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > > >On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood replied to something I said: <SNIP> >Roy, you use phrases like "commercial extensions", "add your own modules" >etc. I am not talking about that, and know that can happen in a healthy >way under this license. What I am talking about is *replacing* modules, >using the source to create/reverse engineer an Open Source version of >SMSQ. At what point does work product stop being derivitive code and start >being clean, unlicensed code? Basically, any module that doesn't include >any original SMSQ code fits that requirement. The task of rewriting an OS >is not trivial, but with the source, it's certainly a lot easier. > This is all true and it has been the subject of some discussion. The root of the problem is that some people want it all for free and some want to be able to get some reward for their work. Both points are as equally valid as they are mutually exclusive. Somehow there has to be a middle ground which can be made to work, Yes writing these extra modules would be just as fragmenting as allow free modification and distribution but it would at least be something the user who has problems might remember to mention when reporting bugs. Along the lines of 'I remember I loaded xxx module' rather than 'oh yes I am running an unapproved version I got from Joe Bloggs via the Internet' . Not perfect I agree. I would rather see all modules added to the final approved code but, since we will not charging for upgrades to the system, we cannot pay the authors.
>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. >One who truly cares about the future of the scene will care greatly about >what form this license takes. 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. No I do not doubt your intentions for one moment. We are struggling to find a decent solution here. > >People may be critical, but that is a positive thing if someone's motives >are to improve the license for everyone's sake. It's when a person tries >to change the license for their own benefit, or stays mysteriously quiet >that you have to worry. That is also something we have considered. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
