On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 09:18:24AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 16 May 2002, at 13:28, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
>
> > can you say me how exactly the license requires
> > the resellers to provide support? In our private
> > discussion you went to great lengths to ensure me
> > how they are required to provide support but I can't
> > find absolutely nothing specific about it in this
> > license.
> > Specifically you have promised me that the resellers
> > will be required to fix bugs and hire people for it
> > if they can't do it themselves.
>
> I
> don't comment private correspondence.
so don't comment private correspondence and answer the
questions.
Previously you asked me to voice my concerns publicaly
so what do you actually want?
> > Lets call things by name. It is not a license but
> > a non-disclosure agreement - why you insist calling
> > it licence is beyound me. You would probably save
> > yourself and others lots of trouble if you would look
> > at some proper commercial NDA.
> >
> > Usually a license would give me some rights, this
> > strange elaborate only gives me the revocable right
> > to read the code.
>
> Which you hadn't before.
I could read the disassembly before you had the idea
that this is illegal.
> > It is also worth noting that the license is subject
> > to change anytime without giving anyone even the
> > slightest guarantees what the next license will look
> > like.
>
> As are all licences.
nonsense. Some licenses state a minimal set of rights that
can't be revoked. Other contain enough guarantees regarding
fair use of the code that I won't care if some future version
of the license would turn into Microsoft "shared source"
license.
Your license doesn't qualify either way.
> > This means that anyone who will want to do
> > something with SMSQ will have to seek separate
> > agreements with all other copyright holders, not
> > a pretty situation.
> >
> > The license says the code is copyright TT. This a void
> > claim which only describes the current state. The license
> > is designed to taint SMSQ by 3d party code. There is
> > absolutely no protection against patent traps, the
> > possibility to include code without publicaly available
> > source invites all sorts of copyright trouble and there
> > is also the separate agreements I have mentioned above.
> >
> > The license doesn't say it, but from personal emails
> > with Wolfgang I conclude that there are people who want
> > to write code for SMSQ in exchange for future royalty
> > payments.
>
thanks for clarifying all this.
> > There is nothing evil about commercial software development
> > but we have a few problems here. There is no choice for
> > the users and other developpers whether they want this
> > 3d party commercial code.
>
> Rubbish. You can always refuse to buy an upgrade if you don't
> want it.
not if it comes bundled with important bugfixes. Do you
want to maintain bugfix releases of old versions?
> > A bigger problem here is that
> > some of the developers who want to write SMSQ code for
> > commercial interests also decide about the license,
> > basically this license is their work. For me this is
> > an unfortunate combination, it is a guarantee that
> > SMSQ will never be even close to opensource.
>
> Right - so the situation until now was very inconvenient because
> TT, who wrote SMSQ/E also wrote the licence?
the situation was inconvenient because TT had limited
resources. You are on the best way to waste even more
resources by the means of licensing braindamage.
The license wasn't a big concern as long as all code
was copyright TT, now that you are going to get bogged
down by a variety of separate licensing agreements
it is a very big concern.
> > Philosophically this is a very interesting concept: People
> > who would like to contribute for free do not even get the
> > right to use their contribution, those who will contribute
> > commercially and seek separate agreements will also receive
> > a share in the decissionmaking of the copyright/licensing
> > as a reward.
>
> There is no difference between the "free" and "non free" developper -
> all go throught the registrar and are included in the code, or not,
> as the case may be.
of course, there is only the difference between those who
have a special agreement with the registrar and those fools
who haven't.
I know that you are highly cooperative wrt special agreements
but do you think this is a good thing for SMSQ?
Seriously, what is the license worth if everyone will have
his special agreement?
> > Interestingly, not all legitimate commercial interests
> > are served equally humbly here. When Peter Graf tried
> > to acquire the right to give away (for free) SMSQ-Q40
> > binaries in exchange for a substantial payment to TT
> > he was turned down (not because he offered too little
> > money btw).
> > This means that Peter has no means to ensure that SMSQ
> > will be available for the Q40/Q60 in the future - and
> > that after having invested horrendeous amounts of money
> > into SMSQ development for functionality that isn't even
> > implemented until today.
>
> If, as you state, the case is that Peter paid "horrendous amounts of
> money" to get some specific work done, and that work wasn't
> done, then I'd say he has a good case to get his money back.
Does he also have a good case to actually get the features
implemented?
Peter might have respondend himself would you have kept the
cc ql-developpers (I am adding it again).
> > Sorry to say but this is just racketeering.
>
> Are you accusing me of racketeering Peter Graf?
> If not me, then whom?
you should have taken the past development (for which you
are not directly responsible of course) and Peter's concerns
into account - it is important part of preconditions when
considering a new license.
Unless you want to guarantee the Q40 users and Peter that :
- the minimal features on the Q40/Q60 will work
- Q40/Q60 will be further supported by SMSQ,
nonregarding whether the now official resellers
are willing or able to futher support it.
than I will wholeheartedly accuse *you* of racketeering.
In case you didn't notice, the whole paragraph (and the
whole preceeding text) was conditionalised by the sentence
"Wolfgang you are welcome to give us your *guarantees*
that I am wrong."
So here is your 2nd chance, sincererly I would love to be
proven wrong.
Ususally I would not hold *you* responsible for this as
Peter and me would do the few fixes myself, however your
license does make it impossible for a few people to support
SMSQ so you should see how you want to fill the holes.
Your license also leaves the question of availablity for
specific platforms completely unresolved, hence my concern
about Q40/Q60 SMSQ availability.
Is that too much asked? You can also try to convince me
with a different license.
> > Given this precedens it also means that other HW developpers
> > would be completely insane to invest money or effort into
> > SMSQ without special agreements that will only make the
> > overall situation worse.
> >
> > Wolfgang you are welcome to give us your *guarantees*
> > that I am wrong.
> >
> I've already pointed out several times here that my job is to make sure as much
> as possible that coherent versions exist for all machines.
sure and by locking out Q40 and UQLX users you will have a much
easier job. Really, those 68060 CPU's is not something you do
want to support.
> > Last not least, there is the purely practical braindamage
> > of the licence. I did quite frequently write drivers for
> > HW which I didn't have installed myself, with SMSQ I would
> > be required to smail the source changes for each development
> > cycle to someone having the hardware - I am not even allowed
> > to S P E L L the changes over phone line!!
> > Not that I would consider touching the code with a 100 ft
> > pole.
>
> So this is a moot point.
>
> > If there is 1 good thing about NDA's than its that a closed
> > circle of developers can work relatively free of any hassle.
> > Wolfgang has managed to combine the worst of all possible
> > licenses here.
> >
> > Also the license has interesting holes. Supposedly SMSQ is
> > sold in exchange for giving support, but what is with
> > unfinished products?
>
> Test versions are catered for.
so for the Q40 we are all running test versions until now?
Are we expected to destroy our ROMs after 2 months? You
are free to create a precedens, iirc you are running
a patched 2.98 ROM ?
> > What happens when there is nobody who
> > would be willing or able to give support and sell SMSQ?
> >
> > I have explained Wolfgang privately why there will never
> > be SMSQ for UQLX with this license. Even if someone does
> > the necessary changes there will be nobody to sell the
> > binary. Neither Jochen Merz nor Roy Wood can not do it
> > - because they lack the possibility to do any sort of support
> > for Unix platforms they can't sell it. Just a quick estimate,
> > they would have to support at least 15 different Unix platforms
> > and OS/2 running an interesting variety of CPU's. I've never
> > even seen all of them myself.
> > I assume this situation pretty much serves the commercial
> > interests of those who created this license because certainly
> > Wolfgang was informed about the problem and had the possibility
> > to solve it. Who cares whether a few hundred users are locked
> > out.
> What sense wooooould it make to create SMSQ/E on a variety of
> platforms if there is no-one to support it?
so far nobody complained about lack of support for UQLX.
There have been a few complaints about missing SMSQ support.
Richard
