Jason,

> > > Why do you say Trustware is "closed"?
> >
> > let's say I don't see it fully open, then...
>
> I really don't see how you can say that having 100% of the source code to
> something and the ability to contribute any fixes or modifications and have
> them adopted as quickly as possible isn't fully open. The only next step
> that I don't take is allow people to fork it and start calling it their own
> derivative.

A major difference; not that I am by any means saying that you should do
it, but the ability to fork and to direct the development in any
direction is something IMHO peculiar to a OS project. Freedom, or
perceived freedom if you like, is the key. IBO just doesn't *look* so
free.

> > > Anyone who wishes to participate in
> > > the development of the product gets the full source and there is no
> charge.
> >
> > I don't think IBO is advertised in this way.
>
> Have you read the license agreement on my web-site?

Several times, actually.

> The only thing right now
> is people need to request the full source be sent to them. I don't make it
> directly available on the net. That is changing soon. I plan to have a
> custom on-line system so that people can register and immediately receive
> the sources without paying anything.

I have a feeling that this would change something in the people's
perception, even though from a rational point of view I couldn't explain
why or how... :-(

> > In addition, the
> > development guidelines of a trustware project (let's take IBO as an
> > example) are more strict than those of a true OS product. I bet the
> > percentage of code that hasn't been written by you in IBO is less than
> > 5%.
>
> What do you mean by strict? Actually I think I have tended to err a little
> on the liberal side.

I agree that you have demonstrated to be much more liberal than any
closed source software house I know. ;-) Perhaps the difference between
IBO and an OS project is that the former is Jason-centric. Would
Marathon be Jason-centric too if put under trustware?

> > Perhaps people don't get it?
> > (perhaps it's just me that doesn't get it)
>
> I really think you don't and I think you are (unfortunately) not alone.

So, you should perhaps find a better way to tell people; a copy & paste
of this last message in the IBO website should be useful. Make it clear
that the source is open to some extent, that anybody can use it for free
for no-profit projects, ecc.
You could keep on saying that I and others get it wrong and don't do
anything to better advertise the model, but I'm sure you will want the
largest possible acceptance for it.

Anyway, I'll do my best to participate in the future development of
Marathon whether it will be OS or trustware (no GPL, please), especially
if the original author (Pat) is going to lead the project for a while.
Furthermore, I can't think of anything better for the project to have
your blessing and "sponsorship", be it trustware or not.

If Marathon gets published under MPL and you fork a trustware branch,
what would I choose to participate in?

Best regards,
--
____
_/\/ando

P.S. I am starting to fear that all this criticism will preclude me the
source license of IBO I was about to ask for ;-)