RE: CUsm Source Licensing

John Falcone (john@PSIRoute.ucsc.com)
Fri, 13 Jan 1995 21:22:01 -0500


Dick,
Maybe it is me, but I'm not sure I understand this note so I will try to
translate.

>Folks,
> We are preparing to release CU-SeeMe source code (most of it) in
>the next couple months for the Mac and Windows desktop clients.

We will release the source code. This is good and welcome news. And I assume the
part not released is not essential to compile or can be readily reconstructed.

As several
>organizations have approached us about licensing for commercial
>distribution, we have decided not to put the code into the public domain or
>otherwise do an unrestricted free distribution.

But it will not be free or in the public domain.

> Note that the reflector
>sources continue to be freely available, although we don't promise that
>will always be true.

Also I assume that changes may take place so that the old free source would become
useless?

> There WILL be a free distribution of CU-SeeMe source code from
>Cornell, but with some restrictions so as to preserve the value for those
>wanting to develop the technology commercially. Details are being worked
>out; stay tuned.

Wait, we can get free source code from Cornell. Good.

> We hope to license to one organization for commercial development.
>That organization would then sub-license (with fees and royalties) to
>anyone else desiring a commercial license. They might also produce their
>own products for end-user distribution (sale).

U can get a commercial license from one selected source organization, not Cornell.
And u need this if u want to do commercial development of derived products.

> Possibly, there would need
>to be additional sources of sub-licenses in other parts of the world.

I'm not sure what this means.

> This announcement is intended as an invitation for anyone who might
>be interested in commercial licensing and development to get in touch, make
>a proposal, etc.

Ok I undertsand this ....

> Incidentally, we DO plan to continue to develop and distribute free
>versions in executable form, as we presently do.

Wait, I can get the executable free from Cornell or get the source and compile it.
Does this mean that only if I am doing commercial work has anything changed?

> This distribution will
>include the new Plug-In interface and Plug-In Software Development Kit,
>permitting others to develop and distribute add-on function modules with
>little restriction. (See announcements of version 0.80b later today or
>early next week.)

This is a very nice idea , I assume that will help us handle strange capture cards, etc.

I know this seems cynical but I guess I don't get it. It seems as tho non-commercial
users can get free executable and/or source from Cornell. And if we wanted a more
bullet-proof executable then we can get that from the commercial licensee or bid on it
ourselves and become the commercial licensee??? So I guess I don't see what the
controversy is?

John

-------------------------------------
Name: John Falcone
E-mail: john@ucsc.com (John Falcone)
Date: 05/16/94
Time: 16:32:56
-------------------------------------