Subject: Re: New MiscKit

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 20:54:48 -0400

>       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.

all for now,

Carl
---
+---------------------------------------------------+
|Carl Lindberg           Colgate University  '94    |
[email-masked]                          |
[email-masked]                       |
[email-masked]    (NeXTMail welcome)  |
+---------------------------------------------------+