On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:18:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The possibility exists in the licence as it stands now that "new" > authors will want a financial retibution for the code that they have > added. I presume that this is what Peter calls "commercial > developpers". Anyone who submits a new source to me for > inclusion could tell me that they want xxx EUR for each copy of > SMSQ/E sold with their code included.
yes. And you neglect the fact, that by the nature of accepting royalty payments you have a SPECIAL AGREEMENT with that particular developper so why did you deny that? Unfortunately, in order to be effective this special agreement would have to grant that developper special rights over the licence. For example someone requesting royalty payments could never agree to a licence change that would allow free distribution of binaries so you would have to ask this developper each time you would wish to change this license. This is a privilege that "normal" developpers will never have and I find this *extremely* unfortunate, effectively the copyright of SMSQ is tainted in a way that can't really do much good to anyone. > There is a questio here, that still needs to be resolved,a nd it > concerns Perter's wish to "buy out" the Q40/Q60 binaries. > As I understand it, Peter would "buy out" the official version as it stands now. > What about new versions as and when they come out. Would they > still fall under this "buy out"? > What if the new version, to which something wonderful might have > been added, wasn't a free upgrade? don't add wonderfull fancy things to the core OS, I can't think of any project that would - be large enough to be justifiably doable only commercial - could not be done very easilly as loadable addon. If you can think of something (anyone, not just Wolfgang!!!) then throw it in for discussion, otherwise please clarify the licence in the way that absolutely no added royalty payments will occur. Richard
