I would like to get to a "final" version of plan #2, so that I can make a
final survey about the whole business (I will make a "final" version of plan
#1 as soon as survey #2 expires, so people will be allowed to compare the
two). I am going to try to assemble the various bits and pieces together into
something that is acceptable to me; if nobody has any negative comment about
it, we'll call it the final version of plan #2 and archive it for later (there
might also be a proposed plan #3 from the EARN Executive). I will include some
comments and/or answers to common questions; they will appear on lines
starting with an asterisk.
Clauses common to ALL possible plans:
A. EARN will purchase from Eric Thomas the right to use and distribute the
existing LISTSERV code for an unlimited duration and on an unlimited number
of CPU's, provided that all these CPU's are connected to EARN. EARN is not
allowed to distribute the code to any institution outside EARN, be it free
of charge or at a fee (to protect me from "dumping"). The exact conditions
and amount of money are irrelevant at this point.
* Why only EARN and not EARN/BITNET? Well the reason is quite simple. EARN is
* going to give money in exchange of the right to use LISTSERV. If EARN wants
* to pay for BITNET and NetNorth also, fine, but it will be more expensive.
* First, EARN is only around 25% of the sites, so you could expect the total
* fee to be at least 4 times higher. In addition, EARN is not interesting
* marketing grounds, because of the number of varied countries with different
* laws, and anyway most VM software companies are in the States. That doesn't
* mean I will make LISTSERV into a product tomorrow and sell it to BITNET (a
* relatively small marketplace, given that universities usually have small
* budgets), but that such a contract would prevent me from doing so, and I
* would then have to account for the lost pennies.
B. EARN will be granted the right to modify the aforesaid LISTSERV code, and
to distribute such modifications to the sites identified in clause A.
* This way, EARN can set up their own maintenance should I run under a truck.
C. EARN will hire, out of their EARN staff budget, one or more part or full
time persons to work on LISTSERV. Their exact role is identified in the
plan-specific clauses below. EARN will provide a unique, stable e-mail
address for this or these person(s).
Clauses specific to plan #2:
1. The EARN staff mentioned in clause C will be responsible for answering any
and all LISTSERV-related questions from EARN people, user and maintainers
alike; should any such question be sent to Eric Thomas, it will be
forwarded unread to the address mentioned in clause C, while the sender
will be notified that further correspondence is to be sent to this address.
2. Clause number 1 also applies to the aforesaid EARN staff; Eric Thomas will
not provide any help in answering their questions.
* Conclusion: the said staff had better have a good experience with LISTSERV.
3. No bug report will be accepted by Eric Thomas from EARN, be it from EARN
users, postmasters or staff.
4. The EARN staff will be responsible for the distribution of the LISTSERV
code to EARN sites, and assignment of new license numbers within a
"reserved range" defined by Eric Thomas. This EARN staff will also maintain
an EARNPEER NAMES file containing the PEERS NAMES entries of all EARN
users, and make it available on a server from which Eric Thomas can
retrieve it whenever he needs to send out a new PEERS NAMES file; these
entries will be merged unchecked into PEERS NAMES, and any problem that
could arise as a result of improper definitions in the EARN portion of the
file would be strictly the responsibility of EARN.
5. Similarly, the EARN staff will be responsible for the provision of the EARN
subset of LINKSWT FILE, which would be maintained in the same fashion.
* After all, this "data files management" issue is really not a problem.
6. Eric Thomas will keep working on LISTSERV during his spare time, and will
provide the resulting code free of charge to BITNET/NetNorth as before;
this is not a binding statement, and such activity may cease at any time
and without prior notification. It should be stressed that the developments
taking place in this framework will be geared towards the needs of BITNET
and NetNorth; requirements that are specific to EARN will be ignored.
7. Whenever Eric Thomas releases a "fix" shipment (ie changes to the code
which correct existing problems but add little or no functionality), he
will make it available to the EARN staff for a symbolic fee of US$
1.00/shipment, under the conditions defined in clause 6 (no warranty, etc).
This EARN staff will then be responsible for distributing these fixes to
EARN LISTSERV sites, if and when they choose to do so.
8. Whenever "significant functionality" is added to the code, as defined by
Eric Thomas, EARN will be given the option to purchase this new
functionality, at the price defined by Eric Thomas and subject to the
limits of $nnnn/year and $mmmm/shipment. If EARN accept, the new code will
be distributed to EARN as defined in clause 7. If EARN refuses, it will not
be made available to EARN, and Eric Thomas will not be able to guarantee
that future "fix" shipments will be usable "as is" on the EARN version of
LISTSERV.
* This is the clause that I find to be most problematic. The way it is written
* it sounds like your typical class B thriller blackmail, but if you write it
* in another way EARN will be able to demand fixes that do not depend on new
* features from me, and this is not acceptable to me. Any idea?
9. EARN staff is allowed to write bug fixes and/or new functions for the EARN
LISTSERV; such functions and fixes can be freely distributed to EARN sites,
with no restriction, and, in addition, to non-EARN sites *only* if they do
not contain any portion of the original code (see the "License Agreement"
for more details). That is, a new function like the WHOIS package could be
distributed to any site, a modified version of LSVXMAIL couldn't. It should
be noted that problems arising from the installation of such changes, or
conflicts between these changes and those made by Eric Thomas, are under
the sole responsibility of EARN.
* If clause 9 gets overused, we are back to plan 1.
End of proposed plan
Here you are. The more I read it, the more it sounds like "If EARN encounters
a problem with LISTSERV, they'd better rush to the nearest church and pray
that it happens also on BITNET, or alternatively pray that it doesn't happen
again, because they're not going to get any kind of fix for that". Although
this solution meets my requirements, I am afraid the BoD won't like it. But I
am prepared to try it if the majority thinks it's better than plan #1 (which
is why I'm going to make a third survey, eventually).
Eric
|
