On 8 Apr 2002, at 15:47, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > probably wrong. It indicates that the provisorial license was so badly > formulated that everyone found his loophole in it and was happy.
Yes, that's another way of looking at it -so I was overly optimistic, then. > the point is that with a usable licence you could have cured the > split between Minerva, QDOS Classic (technically unrelated to QDOS) > and SMSQ. With this license you only avoid new splits and new > development in this one branch > I will happilly contribute to whatever SMSQ alternatives there are. Ok, point taken - a pity, really! > what about source only? You can distribute the source only, of course, but not electonically, it has to be an a physucal media. > > allright, someone will setup an rdist daemon than. This point is > ridiculous. What is a website differnet from a mailing list or email > list or TFTP or samba or NFS or snail or POP or IMAP or any other way > to distribute the code? You are not alone in making this point, hence the "not to be distributed electronically" bit. > You may choose following formulation for your license, perhaps it > follows your intentions: > > Anyone is free to distribute the source code provided that: > a) he doesn't receive any form of payment or reimbursement > b) the distribution method is guaranteed to cost him at > least 10 Euro and 2 hours of work per copy No, it must cost him more, since he must already pay 10 EUR to TT (but NOT for the cource code only). > > very helpful.. but I am not involved so why bother. Indeed. > I will *more than happilly* leave the fun to disassemble broken > SMSQ-Q40 code, diagnose problems in it and implement workarounds > or fixes to the resellers who - according to your license - are > obliged to do support. It is really nice to see appointed > professionals and not some amateurs doing this. > Indeed, again. Wolfgang
