> DeRobertis: We deliver Scott his UI
> under any licence he wants.
Alain: Deliver is a bad choice of words, I think. We
create our FreeCard GUI as open source, with or
without the assistance of the MetaCard app (individual
choice). MetaCard can then bundle FreeCard compatible
alternative GUI along with their own. Furthermore,
they nust make it clear that our GUI is ours
(FreeCard's), and that it's free and open-source.
> DeRobertis: Just because we licence something
> under the GPL to someone, does not mean
> we can't licence it to someone else under
> another licence.
Alain: What? I don't understand. (1) A change of
licencing schemes at the group level would/should
require the ascent of everyone (unanimity). It brings
up the whole set of issues that were threaded as
"Constitutional". (2) Someone who gives code to FC
does not necessarily forego his rights to licence it
differently elsewhere, ok, but I hope that you are not
suggesting that their contribution/gift can be
retracted. e.g. other licences in-addition-to but not
instead-of the FC-GPL, I argue.
> Adrian: Actually, by licencing something under
> the GPL it means that we have to continue to
> licence it under the GPL...
Alain: This is how I see it, too.
> The original author can do what he/she/they want.
> And doing what one wants can be MULTIPLE releases
> with MULTIPLE licenses, even including the GPL.
Alain: Yes, they can almost do anything they want. But
they cannot retract the contributions/gifts they made
to FreeCard, for example. The part they contributed
(and that we distribute) will forever remain FC-GPL,
even if its author wishes all of a sudden to keep the
FC version of his part closed in order to maintain the
competitive edge of their commercially-licenced
version. A gift is a gift.
> Adrian: And at this point the problem arises.
> Who is the original author?
> We've discussed this at length and it will quickly
> become impossible to get
> "the author"'s permission for anything.
> Don't count on getting it.
Alain: Licencing where many sub-parts are out-sourced
is indeed a major headache. It is one of the main
stumbling blocks that is seriously hampering the
progress of multimedia. Matters only complicate
themselves further where sub-parts are themselves
collaborative works where the relative value of each
contribution is difficult to asses .. probably an
intractable problem.
> Adrian: I also don't think we should
> dual release as that splits the workforce.
Alain: Let's get at least one release out there, eh!
;-)
> Adrian: Also, MetaCard should have no problem
> complying with the GPL as they would simply
> package our Home Stack with their distribution
> in the "Alternate Home Stacks" folder like
> HyperCard provided. They would still provide
> their normal Home stack. Also, the Home stack
> is never mixed with proprietary code,
> it is just run by the engine.
Alain: MetaCard, and any other outfit that so chooses
(like RedHat for example), can re-distribute FreeCard
freely in any way they wish: as-is, value-added, as an
alternative to the MC-GUI, whatever. As long as they
abide by the FC-GPL licencing conditions.
> Adrian: Perhaps making it into a MetaCard
> standalone will have to be ruled out, but that's
> not a problem.
Alain: Agreed.
> And it'd be pretty hard for Scott not to include
> source code for the home stack we give him,
> so he'd be complying with the GPL anyway.
Alain: I doubt that any of MetaCard source will be
mixed with ours at all. All MetaCard wants is the GUI,
and that comes in the form of user-editable stacks.
> Adrian: At this stage, I don't think it is
> important to consider how the choice of licence
> affects our arrangements with MetaCard. We choose
> a licence that provides the freedom and protection
> that we want - then if MetaCard want to make an
> agreement with us under those terms, we discuss
> it then.
Alain: I wholeheartedly agree with Adrian.
> Adrian: Changing our aims for the licence because
> it might increase development time isn't wise.
Alain: I do not want to awaken the "constitutional"
dragon, but this kind of fundamental change was one of
the main drives behind making our own constitution.
Are we or are we not open-source? Can contributions be
revoked and/or their licencing changed? I think not.
> Adrian: I agree. This should be discussed fully,
> but I stand by the fact that MetaCard shouldn't
> be a topic of discussion.
Alain: We are FreeCard. Let's get our own house in
order before venturing afield to create associations
with other enterprises. MetaCard is not a member of
FreeCard. Nor is Scott at this time. He told me so himself.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
