On 14 Mar 2002, at 19:59, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
> Ah, interesting. What means "in principle"? And what is the commercial > status supposed to be? If itis Open Source, there will be no more commercial status. The in principle refers to the fact that Tony said he would do it if we find a suitable person. He did suggest you.... He is concerned about his code being savaged if let around freely. We didn't really talk about the legal status of the code (yet). I can't see, however, how Tony could retain copyright if many people worked on it. I'm sure that we will work out something suitable to most (propably not all, see below). > Well, I suppose the amount of people actually doing something with the > code will be quite limited. It's no easy stuff to deal with. Yes, that's true. There are some, however (you, Thierry, Jochen (?) etc come to mind). > So I might be able to do the job if necessary. Glad you volunteered! (I fyou ahdn't, I would have...) > But there's a lot to talk about first... I agree. Tony told me that he had started to integrate most of the different versions (one for each machine on which SMSQ/E runs), so that there is only one source code, with, I presume, different modules. IUf you allow me to, I'll tell him that you volunteered (or you can tell him yourself), to get the source code transfer organised. Now for some more personal notes from me: I'm, of course quite wiling to help in any way I can, even with the actual coding. I do suggest, however, that the "registrar" (for want of a better word(, keep a pretty tight rein over the way things are handled (sorry Phoebus, no soundforge...in my opinion - which is why the 'most' and not "all" above...).. I know that this will enrage the proponents of totally free sources, with which you can do whatever you want. However, we should consider that our resources are limited, and we will all be better off if we share them in an intelligent (and that means managed) manner. That doesn't mean that if somebody absolutely wants some feature, this feature can't be parcelled out to him/her (I'm being optimistic here). I personally also find it very important that, if we do some development on this, we do it for ALL machines that run SMSQ/E. I was a bit worried about your earlier proposalsn because you might have the (totally natural!) tendency to give a priority to QPC( I'm ONLY speculating here, NOT accusing you of anything!) which i something I personally would prefer to avoir (even if QPC is what I use most).... As to you being the registrar, I'm at once for and against it - here's why: I think that you are one of the few people capable of really understanding what Tony has done. As such, you are, of course ideally suited as registrar. On the other hand, since you are one of those rare persons, you are one of those few who can actually be doing some real coding work and quite selfishly, I'd rather see you do that... The questionis : can you manage both.? Wolfgang > > Marcel > > ----------------- www.wlenerz.com
