On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:01, Dexter wrote: This is a reply to some concerns raised by Dexter on the future Licence. Please read my more general reply first.
(very large snip) > Let me explain how this restriction relates to me, and how it makes SMSQ/E > unusable to me. This is a real world case. This is a great example! > I am developing an ARM-based microcomputer, in the traditional sense. It > will be a single board, with all the interfaces built in. It will fit the > QL form factor, and could fit in a QL case. It will need an OS, and parts > of that OS will need to be optimized or even replaced to make the code run > more quickly and 'safely' on uQLx, and with parts of the code being > converted to native ARM assembly. I would have to submit my sources, which > would imemdiately become publicly available whether I like it or not, Two replies here: 1/ You DO NOT HAVE TO SUBMIT YOUR SOURCES. I very much encourage you to do so, but you do not have to. BUT, only source submitted to me will be part of the official release versions. 2 / Even if you do submit your sources to me, they can be kept secret (except from me). See the more general reply for this. > and > which may not even be accepted. If they are not accepted, there is no way > for me to use those modifications under the license. That is true. > I would have to > contact TT or yourself and negotiate the right to distribute, which would > likely be declined as causing a code branch. Yes, this possibility exists. However, all I can say is that we are pretty reasonable. If you make a specific version of SMSQ/E for a very specific hardware, I fail to see why there should not be an official release version for that machine (with one proviso). You could be a reseller for SMSQ/E for that machine - and there you have it. The proviso mentioned above is that, if it is perceived that, ON PURPOSE, you make your version of SMSQ/E incompatible to the others, then I'd probably refuse to accept it. I don't know why anybody would do such a thing, but human nature being as it is... >I would just talk to Lau and use Minerva if that was the case. I hope your fears are dispelled. > I appreciate you want a co-ordinated > road, but this rule doesn't just give a co-ordinated road, it gives no > other roads whatsoever allowed for any commercial development whatsoever. This I don't agree with that, of course. The problem with control over anything is always that, to be effective, the control must be total, at least potentially. It is up to you (or me, in this case), to use this reasonably. I can't do more than assure you that this will be the case. > No, this usually isn't the case in my experience. In this project there > would be 2-3 developers/coders, and 4-5 others who would be beta testers. > Firmware would initially be tested by the developers/coders, and once > everything looks ok, the 4-5 non-paying testers would use the equipment, > normally, and would find any interactions with other hardware/software > that the three developers just do not have the time/equipment/range of > hardware/combinations to do. The testing issue will be addressed in the short future. > Any law has to be convenient in a society that people don't have to put > themselves out to obey it. This is why everybody speeds and nobody robs > banks... If the rule is just too inconvenient, people will ignore, > circumvent or just make it irrelevant by using something else. To be quite frank : shudder. Ok, this is a bit OT, but, if you DO speed, and DO cause harm to anybody because of this, you WILL be punished. I know that people will always take shortcuts, but I've also heard people justify a bank robbery by saying that, after all, banks are insured and that nobody "really" loses any money when the bank is robbed. Needless to say, there again, I don't agree - but I DO see your point! > Wolfgang, consider this a test. Like I said, this is *mostly* devil's > advocate, though one rule does affect me so negatively it rules SMSQ out > for a project I am doing. If the criticisms are voiced, the concerns > raised, the issues discussed and reasoned and if necessary modifications > made, everyone benefits. Yes! I'm not sure I passed the test, except for one aspect, i.e. that I try to reply to each concern, as it is voiced, in a civilized manner. I took my time doing it, but that, I hope, is OK. > I would like to see this conversation remain as light as it is now. If it > gets vitriolic, I shall withdraw, as that isn't constructive. So far, > we're all doing really great :o) > Entirely agreed! Wolfgang
