At 03:43 15.06.02 -0400, you wrote: >OK, time to put in my teo-penneth worth. > >This discussion/arguing needs to be brought to a swift end - it is in >danger of not only fragmenting the whole QL scene even further, but >putting people off the QL, SMSQ/E and this email list at a time when we >all need to band together. > >We do not need to start again with a different licence (GPL or otherwise) >as this will just provoke further discussion from those who are not >willing to work under that licence as it stands. > >What we need is the Grafs (after discussion with Richard) to list which >clauses in the licence they feel prevent further development for the >Q40/Q60 operating system (I currently cannot see where the problems lie) >and propose replacement clauses which they would find acceptable and which >should not prevent commercial development of SMSQ/E also. Not everyone is >willing to carry out work for nothing but on the other hand, not everyone >would demand payment for their work. > >Until some specfic proposals for changes to the licence are put forward by >the Grafs their comments are just going to be seen as mindless bickering.
Hi Rich, a specific proposal has already been put forward to Wolfgang many weeks ago. It was a small exception for Qx0 in the license, which was to allow free public distribution of the official Qx0 binaries, while I personally contribute the fee for Tony Tebby. For ease of use, I wanted a one-time payment, but I also offered to pay for additional boards, should the number of boards be higher than expected. The reason behind this idea was to make sure that every author who writes code for Qx0, can be sure his executable will be *available*, regardless of my person. This would give the non-commercial authors a feeling of savety that their code won't be lost. This will surely not motivate folks like Richard for major work, but maybe he would contribute a minor fix now and then. I don't know. Do you think it could help to re-phrase this to suit the latest draft and mail it again? Or would this only lead to further accusation and escalation? All the best Peter >I think Wolfgang should give a cut off point of say 7 days for proposals >to be put forward, after which, if nothing is received, the licence should >be adopted as it stands. > >Rich Mellor >RWAP Software >7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR >TEL: 01977 614299 >http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
