On Sun, 19 May 2002, Dave Walker wrote: > Coming back to the original source code license, there has been a lot of > discussion about only sending the source via physical media. I agree very > strongly with others comments that this seems a needless restriction. It > seems to add cost and inconvenience for very little gain. It is very easy > to provide a secure web site that only allows authorised users to download > any file(s) - and also records every such download if that matters! If > necessary such a site could be partitioned so that there were different > levels of security around different files.
Indeed. As a developer, one would expect to be kept up-to-date with the latest sources automatically. To expect developers to do so by mail, at their own expense, when there are instant methods available that incur no expense and enhance communication between the various developers is indeed a needless restriction. Separately, and this is complex because of my situation, but let's put it this way... Peter Graf and I do not exactly see eye to eye. We have agreed to disagree when it comes to developing hardware for the Qx0. However, I must stand up 100% in support for him. The resellers do not wish to sell a Qx0 version of SMSQ. The only way for them to supply Qx0 in this situation is to become resellers themselves. This is a distraction from what they're trying to do. Also, they may not be qualified, or may consider other development tasks more pressing, than supporting SMSQ users. If I end up handling hardware sales, would I have to become an SMSQ reseller? I'm not qualified. But if the resellers declined to offer the ZYXABC version of SMSQ (as they have done with the Qx0) I would have no choice but to find someone who can do it, and add those support costs to the cost of the product. Notwithstanding that I would have to keep requesting and paying for current sources just to stay in tune. I think any reseller should be required to provide all versions of SMSQ or none at all. Anyway, the situation is not a happy one. There are two main hardware developers who would need to include SMSQ with a new product. D&D, and the Goldfire outfit. D&D appears to be sidelined out of SMSQ, and if I were selling Goldfires I would be sidelined too, just because of the development hurdles being thrown down before me. Now, what is the objective of this license? Dave
