In message <004c01c205cc$b4284340$47200150@taff2>, Jeremy Taffel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > Consider scenario 1. You accept my proposed changes. Richard > develops UQLX for SMSQ/E, touts it with Redhat/SuSe/Mandrake/Slackware/Debian >(at least one is already > interested) , and as soon as one has it, the others want it as well > because that is the way they are). > > ....user buys/downloads set of CDs Does a full installation, and starts > to play. Soon, in a fit of nostalgia, he finds himself playing with the > emulators. And "what is this??.... a QL brought into the modern world?! Wow, I >wonder if I have any listings of my old SuperBasic > programmes??", then " I can't work out how the demo's do XYZ, pity > the documentation isn't up to it, better send of my xx Euro (10 to TT, something >TBD to a reseller to pay for his support) to get some > support". But all of this could have happened before with UQLX as it stands. In fact the old QDOS ROMs were more tolerant of bad programming techniques than SMSQ/E so a lot of code would not run under it. > > Multiply that by n% of the Linux world and even though n is small, it > represents a worthwhile increase in our community. These users then > start to buy or even develop applications software, the QL compatible > scene is rejuvenated. I cannot see any increase in the user base as a result of the current batch of free emulators and I can see no reason that will change by magic if SMSQ/E is written for UQLX. > But of course, neither will happen. You won't change the licence, and > Richard won't develop UQLX under it. I will continue to use UQLX with > Minerva for "legacy" work , and use other operating systems for > everything new.Eventually another long time user lost. > > I for one am a potential new user for SMSQ/E, but only if/when it > > is running under uQLx So you have used UQLX for a long time but will give up if you cannot have SMSQ/E ? Is this really what you are saying here ? >. > Wee, yousee, what prevents you, from my pont of view, to get > SMSQ/E under UQLX, apparently, is not the licence, but the fact > that one man, Richard, Zidlicky, is unwilling to work under it. > I think that my illustration above explains why it is unreasonable for him > to work under this licence.If he doesn't develop it, I won't blame him at > all. His view, while unfortunate for me, is logical, and in his position I > would do the same. I think the illustration above has more holes than a lorry load of colanders. > > These are only suggestions if you don't like them, then fine. > The question isn't really whether I like them or not. The question is > whether they will be able to create an envrionment where > everybody, including the resellers and authors, will be able to work. > As you mentioned earlier, there is a rift - I see that rift between those > who, like me, want to ensure continued support fro SMSQ/E, and > see that as coming in a great part from the resellers and > comemrcial work, and others (like Richard) who want a true "open > source" (incuding binaries). Like you, I have come to the > conclusions that these positions are ot reconcilable. I try to do > what I think is right. And I think that most people should be applauding you for that. <BIG SNIP> > P.S. Having just read Roy's response, it seems that you and he have a > different view as to whether commercial offerings will be accepted into > the core operating system. No wonder I'm confused. If he has no > problems with some of my suggestions and even thinks that some of > the ideas have been agreed already, why are you so negative? OK I may have overstepped myself a bit here. Jochen and I discussed the concepts of adding commercial bits to SMSQ/E and, although I was at first very much in its favour, he pointed out to me that it would be unworkable in practice. The costs would spiral out of control (for the user - not for the reseller) and the administration would be a nightmare. We did decide that all commercial developments would have to be in the form of add-ons and that any development that had to go into the core of SMSQ/E would have to be free and go into the open version. I did think that this has been put to Wolfgang but it obviously had not. I apologise if I have mislead you. As I said I have no actual control over how the licence is. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
