Received: from yvax2.byu.edu by maine.et.byu.edu; Tue, 19 Oct 93 18:52:59 -0600
Return-Path: <lindberg@cs.colgate.edu>
Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON by yvax.byu.edu (PMDF V4.2-13 #4169) id
<01H4B2BWU4409BWF8E@yvax.byu.edu>; Tue, 19 Oct 1993 18:50:56 MDT
Received: from alaska.et.byu.edu by yvax.byu.edu (PMDF V4.2-13 #4169) id
<01H4B2BSYSOG9BWCNC@yvax.byu.edu>; Tue, 19 Oct 1993 18:50:50 MDT
Received: from yvax2.byu.edu by alaska.et.byu.edu; Tue, 19 Oct 93 18:52:30 -0600
Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON by yvax.byu.edu (PMDF V4.2-13 #4169) id
<01H4B2BF0VG094ORQL@yvax.byu.edu>; Tue, 19 Oct 1993 18:50:32 MDT
Received: from cs.colgate.edu (csnext.colgate.edu) by yvax.byu.edu (PMDF
V4.2-13 #4169) id <01H4B2B26PPS94HCOY@yvax.byu.edu>; Tue,
19 Oct 1993 18:50:23 MDT
Received: from turbows1 (turbows1) by cs.colgate.edu (NeXT-1.0 (From
Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0) id AA16577; Tue, 19 Oct 93 20:54:54 EDT
Received: by turbows1 (NX5.67c/NeXT-2.0) id AA02336; Tue,
19 Oct 93 20:54:48 -0400
Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.87.1)
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.87.1)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 20:54:48 -0400
From: lindberg@cs.colgate.edu
Subject: Re: New MiscKit
To: misckit@cs.colgate.edu
Reply-To: lindberg@csnext.colgate.edu
Message-Id: <9310200054.AA16577@ cs.colgate.edu >
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Status: RO
> Re: [copyrighting stuff]
I think the general idea is that the original author retains the copyright, but once in the MiscKit it stays in. The GNU-type licensing setup, as described, sounds like it fits the bill. I'm no lawyer though. I'm not sure it's all that different from what's there already though...
As far as maintaining code, I think it's in the spirit of the MiscKit that its objects and code should be improved as time goes on. Therefore someone should be in charge of folding in new code, and that person is logically the original author. But only if they want to. I think that's pretty much the way the license has it already.
> Re: 3a
> Is the administrator's permission requirement really desirable? The problems I see:
>
I like the 'permission is granted' wording on this...
> Re: 3a: "latest version being distributed"
> [distributor may not *want* to distribute latest version]
This is a good point. I think distributing the latest version would usually be preferable, but in the end leave that up to the distributor. I don't think simply notifying the MiscKit administrator is too much to ask, though.
> Re: 3bc
> [media restrictions stuff]
I think all the pricing restrictions should stay there, for the reasons Don layed out. On mandating an uncompressed redistribution for large media.... I don't know. One would think that the people buying the distribution would determine how the distributor handles such issues. I say leave this to the distributor. I think it's up to them to determine what people want (it's in their interest, after all). Maybe a 'preferably uncompressed if distributed on mass storage media' line or something, but that's as far as I would go.
> Re: 2 [partial kit distribution]
>
Hmmm.... unmodified, but partial, kit distribution. Hm. We definitely wanted to put a lot of restrictions on modified kit distributions, to keep down mutant versions floating around. But partial.... well, it'd be somewhat tough because so many of the MiscKit objects depend on others. I wouldn't want to distribute portions of the MiscKit that don't work because of missing parts. Other than that, though, I don't see a problem with partial kit distribution, as long as it's marked as such and carries the MiscKit license. This might be a permission one.
4. More Restriction:
> Re: 2 [marking modified distribution stuff]
>
What we wanted here was to ensure that if in fact a modified distribution did come out, it would be totally clear to whoever is using it that it is not the official MiscKit, and that future versions of the official MiscKit may be incompatible with the mutant one. I think that restriction should be left there. If you want to specify that the MiscKit license is also there, then fine. Hopefully a modified MiscKit thing won't happen though.
> Re: 9 [Specifying in the license that the MiscKit will always be free]
>
Well, this seems like it could be taken for granted, but so did the Bill of Rights way back when.... :-) Might as well.
