On 8/16/2010 1:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
ruined). Nick does not appear to have asked in any of these fora about the
existence of video-friendly TECO implementations.
But must he? I'm sure there are billions of Commodore-related outlets
that
I don't know about.
I think he should at least perform a cursory online search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Video+TECO provides a link the
Sourceforge web site for the files
(
http://sourceforge.net/projects/videoteco/files/) off of one of the
first few links. Now, it appears the same source is hosted twice on
SF.net.
Further, the
code he is publishing *AND PUTTING UNDER LICENSE* belongs to
someone else, someone with whom he states he has not been able to contact.
That is so far from OK that I am surprised that I'm the only one who has
had anything to say about it (in public?).
That's a valid point, I didn't notice that myself. I'll mention
that to him.
I think this is a larger point. Merely rehosting the files is
potentially wasteful, but no worse (all things considered) than
mirroring files. The act of re-releasing it under a new license (I'm
assuming Paul did not originally release under the SleepyCat license)
carries some legal implications if the "currently enlist[ed] developers"
modify code thinking they are working under one license, and then later
find out the code was not licensed under that license.
I can understand your point, though. I doubt Nick meant to run afoul of
so many specifics by doing this. He's no doubt just excited he found an
important part of history. Still, I think he needs to understand the
issues and the realities of open source licensing. Maybe you can
lightly relate the issues and help him address the potential hosting
duplication and the licensing issues.
Jim
--
Jim Brain, Brain Innovations (X)
brain at
jbrain.com
Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times!
Home:
http://www.jbrain.com