Le Friday 09 November 2001 � 17:00:36, David Corcoran a �crit: > Hello,
Hi Dave, > The applet is free and will be free. This applet is a test right now. > It may succeed or it may fail. We will see. > > The reason it is delicate and that sources shouldn't be distributed yet is > because in it's early stages, I can imagine 20 people changing the applet. > This results in 20 different applets, 20 different protocols. If there > are 20 different applets its no different than having 20 different cards > and the musclecard idea is completely lost. You can't have interoperability > on the card if there are 20 different versions of the applet. So you think the 20 people changing the applet are stupid or, even worse, malicious and they _want_ to make an non interoperable version? Can you give me just _one_ example of a free software project that splited into two non interoperable versions without a good reason? > The current license is restrictive, but that is because I'm trying to gain > feedback. The license currently restricts redistribution. So according to the Open Source Definition [1] your applet is not Open Source. The _first_ criterium is "1. Free Redistribution". I don't know how you can say "The applet is free and will be free" in your first sentence. You mean free as in free bear? > I don't want this initial version to be widely distributed and changed > - if this occurs nothing has been accomplished and a huge distribution > mess has occurred. Maybe you can, at least, try to distribute it under an Open Source licence and see what happens. I completely understand your fears but I do not suppose, as you do, that the other developpers are completely stupid. > Although many people on this list may disagree with me, I don't agree with > the GPL license - it is too restrictive. It does exactly the opposite of > what it stands for, restricts freedoms. A not so bad resume is: GPL gives freedom to the users BSD gives freedom to the developers. > GPL requires any software using a GPL'd software be also open source. That's not exact. Maybe you should re-read the GPL more carrefully. The restriction is not on "using" but on "linked with". For many years it was not possible to _use_ GPL tools on a free OS because none existed at that time. But still the GPL tools were and are usable on a non free OS. > I don't expect every item built on pcsc-lite and this applet to be free > and/or open source. Some may disagree with this. Putting your applet under BSD will not limit its use for non free projects. Even if the applet were under GPL it could be used in non free projects. > I know these emails will stir up a huge debate, but I guess that's the > point of public forums like this : ) My fear is that I will not be able to use and distribute the applet. So I have two choices: 1. do not use the musclecard architecture but use PKCS or another architecture or 2. reimplement the applet using an free software licence and, of course, my new applet will respect the musclecard interface to be compatible with other musclecard plateforms. So in both cases you lose, I will _not_ use _your_ applet. Your dream of everyone using the same applet is over :-( Even worse, I may not succed in reimplementing a completely valid applet so my applet will not be exactly compatible with yours. So by limiting my freedom you force me to do what you wanted to avoid. Strange conclusion isn't it? Dave, I want to help you deploy your architecture and make it a standard. But you need to help me in doing so. Best regards, [1] http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html -- Ludovic Rousseau [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Normaliser Unix c'est comme pasteuriser le Camembert, L.R. -- *************************************************************** Unix Smart Card Developers - M.U.S.C.L.E. (Movement for the Use of Smart Cards in a Linux Environment) http://www.linuxnet.com/ To unsubscribe send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe sclinux ***************************************************************
