Peter Graf wrote:
> > Wolfgang wrote: > >> In view of this new development, I will of course take counsel with >> TT. The obvious result is that the licence will be delayed, and so >> will the release of the source code. Sorry. > > If we had simply used a well-established open source license instead of > creating and discussing a new commercial NDA, we could long be working > with the source code. <snip> >> However strange it may seem to you, the licence has been worked out >> with TT's agreement. > > However strange it may seem to you, TT himself would allow Open Source. I've tried to follow some of this licence dispute, but I've got totally lost [as to why each bit of the licence is there]...a couple of questions that have probably been answered, but a refresher [answer] would be useful as they really define what ought to be in the licence: 1 - What EXACTLY has TT offered wrt the source? [Was it a "I'm happy to give them to you to publish, provided you can come up with some licence to protect them?" Or a "I don't have time to develop it, so do you want them so you can?" "Oh, and by the way, I'll keep copyright over the sources, or shall I give them to you?" Or something [completely] different? Without answering this question, it is impossible to comment on the licence?] 2 - Once TT's offer has been explained, for what exactly is the licence? To provide TT some royalties (as a thanks)? To stop some one using TT's (and other's) code for self gain? To protect those who gain income (however minor) from distributing the OS? Or, again, something [completely] different? cm
