[DGD]Patches

[Jason Cone]

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Bearden" <bearden_james at hotmail.com>


> [...]
> I did have a question about DGD 1.1 and the commercial version offered by
> skotos tech.
>
> If I were to build my lib up from 1.1, the public version, would it be
> portable to the commercial version available at skotos tech if down the
line
> I wanted to go commercial in any way?
>
> What is the difference between the commercial version and the ones Dworkin
> has worked on and is working on? 1.1 and all the experimental ones.

I can't speak to the functional differences of the 2 versions (I heard that
there was extended network functionality in the commercial one, but don't
quote me), but there's more to the process of obtaining a commercial license
than meets the eye.

[Note to Chris -- you're a respected innovator and your reputation precedes
you, but I'm going to be quite frank in my opinion of _my_ understanding of
the license terms.  If I'm wrong on any of the points, do clarify as these
points were the major reasons why I did not further pursue a commercial
license.]

It costs money.  That's a given and is not all that surprising.  If you're a
college student, though, I wouldn't dwell on the possibility for too long.
;)  In addition, though, here is my understanding of the rights and
obligations associated with said license (as per my conversation with
Chris):

1) You are able to use DGD proper for commercial purposes; profit can be
gained from its usage.

2) You are given a copy of the lib that Skotos is working on and are
required to use that lib as the foundation for the projects that will run on
your commercial license of DGD.

3) If you make any modifications to said lib, you are further required to
submit those changes to Skotos so that they can be evaluated for inclusion
in their copy of the same lib.  This is where I begged for some
clarification.  It was implied that implementation-specific changes would
not need to be submitted, but I was not given a clear definition of what
"implementation-specific" meant.  The point was finally justified by him
suggesting to me that everyone should be working with, and benefiting from,
the same advances.

4) I inquired to the possibilities of obtaining a license where #2 and #3
would not exist.  This had evidentally not been asked before b/c he replied
with, "Sure.  I'm sure we can work something out." :)  "Working something
out" entails paying upward of $75K.  Not good.

#1 is expected.  #2 would be acceptable given that #3 didn't exist.  I just
don't see how they can expect others to pay for a license, be required to
use a code base, submit changes made to said codebase (which, by the way,
they would be able to further profit from), and then feel that they have
something special; unique; and worth inidividual development.  To me, that's
like saying, "Here's your house.  You paid good money for it.  Any
additions/improvements that you make to the house, though, must also be
provided to everyone else in your neighborhood."  Nuh uh.  I'll go rent an
apartment and loose all potential equity I might gain from owning a house.
;)

Anyway, like I said, if I'm wrong on the above (or if things have changed),
please correct me.

JC



List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd