On 18 May 2002, at 12:13, Richard Zidlicky wrote: (...)
> so don't comment private correspondence and answer the > questions. So rephrase the questions without reference to private correspondence. > Previously you asked me to voice my concerns publicaly > so what do you actually want? What makes you think I changed my mind? > I could read the disassembly before you had the idea > that this is illegal. And the fact that I had this "idea" now changes that? > > 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. Nonsense. So yo revoke the passage that contains irrrevocable rights... >(...) > > 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? What kind of an argumlent is this? If the bugfixes are sufficient reason to buy an upgrade, buy it for the bugfixes and tgetthe new features thrown in for free - or do you mean that you would complain if you also had new features? > > 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. There are no separate licence agreemnts - the licence stays as it is. > > 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. the fools are those who think that I have special agreemnts with anyone. > I know that you are highly cooperative wrt special agreements Nice. Which ones are you referring to? > but do you think this is a good thing for SMSQ? > Seriously, what is the license worth if everyone will have > his special agreement? Same point. > > 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? Why should he more or less now than earlier? Who would be responsible for that? > Peter might have respondend himself would you have kept the > cc ql-developpers (I am adding it again). I've always used this list. I see no reason to change. > > > 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. 1 - Answer the question about the rackettering. 2 - I see no reason why I should have taken into account "past developments" for anybody. If anybody has an issue with the way developments were done in the past, I'd suggest they take it up with TT. Can you understand that we are now talking about the future? How can a new (and as yet nion existing) licence cover software in the past? > 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. Why should I guarantee anyything to anybody? Are you trying to make me responsible for the code, writing it, maintaining it, fixing bugs? Boy, what a lack of understanding of the licence and the office of the registrar. > than I will wholeheartedly accuse *you* of racketeering. Then go look up racketeering in the dictioanry. I'm still willing to believe that you don't know what you're talking about. > 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." Again who are you to request a guarantee from me? > So here is your 2nd chance, sincererly I would love to be > proven wrong. Oh thanks, I don't need second chances from teh likes of you. I'll take the first chance I already have and try to make something out of SMSQ/E. > 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. Thanks for not holding me responsible - now be a good sport and bar the "normally". > 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. Guess what ? I don't have to "convince" you. Availability for specific platform is simply done via the resellers. If a specific platform isn't catered for, then a new reseller can do this. > > 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. Pure rubbish. Why and how am I locking out anybody? You are locking yourself out. You prefer to stand in the corner saying that you won't touch this 'licence with a pole". Ok, fine, that's your CHOICE - don't blame others for this. > > 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 ? > I don't know, you tell me. you can't seriously make me believe (unless the braindamage lies whare you wouldn't like it to) that you think that a new (and as yet non existing) licence covers software that was bought a few months ago? Oh, and thanks for telling me that the Q60 SMSQ/E I got when I bought the machine is an unfinished product - that means of course that I am entitled to get free upgrades until the product is finished. > > 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. Now this is very interesting - do you really mean 'lacking SMSQ support" rather than "lacking SMSQ" - I didn't konw a version of SMSQ was developped for UQLX... ----------------- www.wlenerz.com
