Roy wood
Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:33:29 -0800
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes <SNIP>
No, that is not the case. The users have gained by having a stable system that is being developed in a coherent manner. Peter could be part if that if he chooses and he could become a reseller - he had the offer - and then sell it at cost so making it, if effect, free.The whole situation is a mess and it is only the users who are losing out.
This is, in fact, what most of them have told me.If Peter is unwilling to allow the majority of QL users have access to his code, then so be it - we will just have to accept that situation and move on. Most people seem perfectly happy with SMSQ/e and how it is now and the way in which changes are managed and released.
I agree. I just wanted to point out that, after months of peace on the subject Peter pops up and dangles a mythical carrot and starts everyone off again.Most people are ignorant of why Peter and others want SMSQ/e to be under GPL and also what changes this would actually bring. To tell the truth, I would bet most people simply do not care, so long as SMSQ/e continues to be developed and released for the good of the QL community. Enough of the bickering.
True. And no reason at all why he should not give it away free as a module which can be bolted on to SMSQ/E. Did I say no reason?If a programmer wants to release his hard work for only a small percentage of the QL community, then so be it. It's just a shame that very few people will ever see the benefits of his work.
-- Roy Wood Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex. Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030 fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501 web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk