On Mon, 13 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The future licence-to-be has been a bit
> modified, notably to take into account the fact
> that test versions must be easily distributed.
> Here is the (still provisional) text. As usual,
> I invite all of you to comment.
Ok :o)
> 2/ SMSQ/E will be made available, as source code
> only, to any person who so requests it. The
> request must be made to the "registrar", i.e.
> me. The source code will be sent via CD ROM,
> thus the request must be accompanied by 3 IRCs,
> else it will be ignored.
Never say things likje 'the "registrar", i.e. me.' because this means "me"
is the registrar. This is very open to abuse. You would here put a
personal or organisation name and contact details. Obviously this is a
draft, but this does need correcting.
You went on to say:
> 2/ Authors making additions etc are still
> prohibited from distributing binary versions of
> SMSQ/E, even for free.
That's not what the license says:
> 8/ For testing purposes only, authors having
> made one or several
> changes/additions/modifications/adaptions of
> SMSQ/E may, as an exception to the prohibition
> of distributing code stemming from the official
> release version in binary form as mentioned
> above, give away binary version of their code,
> together with binary versions of SMSQ/E, to not
> more than 10 persons in total (whatever the
> number of test versions), provided that the
> persons receiving these test versions agree to
> destroy them:
>
> - after a period of 2 months, or
> - at the time the
> changes/additions/modifications/adaptions for
> the test version are included in the official
> release version, or
> - when they are notified by the author that a
> stable version is now available
>
> whatever comes first.
There. Software developers are explicitly allowed to distribute beta/test
versions as listed above. However, the way this is currently structured is
open to abuse.
May I suggest a small change here?
Limit distribution of beta/test versions to only those who a) are already
entitled by license to posess a copy and b) are actively involved in
testing or debugging the software. This will allow genuine distribution,
but prevent distribution on a "friendly" basis.
Finally, I strongly advise a change to the structure of the document now
that the content is almost there ;o) I would recommend defining
"Licensor", "Licensed Distributor", "Licensed Developer" and "Licensed
User" as all have different rights and restrictions placed on them by the
above license.
If you would like, I would be happy to assist you privately to do this,
without changing either the intent or the specifics of the license as it
now stands...
Dave
