On 29 May 2002, at 19:59, Mail Delivery Subsystem wrote:
Aha, the first real AI, then...
(Sorry, coudln't resist that)
> USERS get the license as it stands, but with developer
references stripped
> out.
>
> DEVELOPERS get the user licence, with an addendum that
allows distribution
> of source/binaries between developers only, and by any means
appropriate
> including email, FTP, etc. as long as that distribution is only with
other
> authorized developers and/or the registrar.
Just a question: who determines what and who an authorized
developper is? Should it be the registrar (i.e. me)? If yes, see this
list clamoring for a defintion of who and what such an authorized
developper is...
Up to now, there is no such concept in this discussion, all
developpers are equal.
> Here's where it gets cool...
>
> I'll set up a secure, authenticated mailing list, and only licensed
> developers as notified by the registrar could join. They would then
have
> access to the mailing list and each other instantly, access to the
latest
> sources, and to each other for developing, with none of this
accessible to
> the outside community.
I can see your good intentions here. However, until now, it wasn't
my intention to have a "closed group" of developpers, with the
others being, de facto, shut out.
I would like the opinions of all people on this list in this respect.!!!
(Dave, don't take this as useless criticism of your proposal!)
Also, I presume that the goal of your proposal is to get round two
problems:
- distribution of souces via disk only
- non-distribution of binaries
I can already tell you that the first will not be maintained in the
licence, since the consensus here seems to be that they should
also be distributable via Email. However, it will not be possible to
put them on a website; to maintain some sort of traceability.
As to the second point, the licence allows you to distribute your
binaries for test versions to 10 people. Is that really not enough?
(and nothing in the licence says that you can't do this via email).
> The registrar can specify project goals to the extent of saying
"Widget
> 2.2 will be ready and tested on 7th August 2002. All submissions
accepted
> before then wilkl be included in SMSQ version 3.12a, everything
not
> received by then will have to wait for 3.12b which is aiming for
15th
> Sept."
That WOULD be nice. However, I'm afraid that this is a bit
optimistic, since I'm not sure that I will be informed of each and
every development, and also, since most of us will be developping
for free and for fun, setting (and keeping) deadlines like that will be
very difficult!
> This way, there is a unified and open communication between
developers and
> the registrar/each other.
>
> Something like this will inevitably happen regardless of the
license
> (along the lines of if no financial harm is done, who would sue
anyway)
> but if this can be done with the consent and co-operation of the
> registrar, the developers, and within the license, GREAT!
OK.
> And this doesn't affect regular user distribution, because they still
> agree to the original license as it now stands.
>
> So, who would be up for that?
Yes, I'll second that : comments please!!!!
Wolfgang
