Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Timothy, I think that the Reference Guide was a document that Jochen put together - and therefore belongs to him from a copyright point of view? Has anyone approached Jochen about the Reference Guide? Having said that you have an excellent point in that nobody has been saying anything about the documentation side of things.I doubt whether Jochen makes any money from it and does it mainly as a service to the community. I know he has had problems keeping it up-to-date. Certainly if the SMSQ/E documentataion could be treated as a communual effort and also if it could be distributed electronically (albeit in what format would need agreeing) I think it would be much easier to keep it up-to-date. This will become more of an issue of authors start making all the extensions to SMSQ/E that we are hoping would happen. If it matters I could supply a secure web site for hosting such items. Coming back to the original source code license, there has been a lot of discussion about only sending the source via physical media. I agree very strongly with others comments that this seems a needless restriction. It seems to add cost and inconvenience for very little gain. It is very easy to provide a secure web site that only allows authorised users to download any file(s) - and also records every such download if that matters! If necessary such a site could be partitioned so that there were different levels of security around different files. Dave - Original Message - From: Timothy Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 6:08 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code I've glanced over the comments made by others on the SMSQ/E official statement and have decided to take a nice long look at the statement myself. The comments below are strictly my opinion, not based on any input from the other commentors. At 02:50 PM 5/13/2002 +0200, you wrote: Official statement == 3/ No distribution of SMSQ/E may be SOLD, except for the official distribution. This interdiction includes that of including and distributing SMSQ/E in Public domain libraries. Official distributions will be sold in compiled (binary) form, possibly together with the official distribution as source code. For such sales, for the time being, two distributors/resellers, namely Jochen MERZ (JMS) and Roy WOOD (QBRANCH) have been appointed by the copyright holder. Resellers provide support for the versions sold by them. Except by prior agreement, binary, i.e. compiled, versions of SMSQ/E may not be distributed other than through the distributors. It would be better to leave out stating who the official distributors are in this Official Statement, and put it in a separate document. It would be kind of like putting in the name of the Officers in a set of By-Laws, as the names will change over time, and the By-Laws probably will not. 4/ The registrar, i.e. me, will maintain official distributions of SMSQ/E, in binary and source code form, one for each machine on which SMSQ/E may run. I would recommend defining the terms Registrar (but not as me) and Distributor/Reseller. Just to fully clarify who they are and what they do. 5/ Any person may make any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions to the source code he feels like. Any person may give away to others the modification he thus made, including the official distribution in source code form only, provided this is made ENTIRELY FOR FREE - no charges, not even copying charges, or charges for the media on which this is distributed, may be levied. I understand the total avoidance of any one making money off of the source code for SMSQ/E, but I feel not allowing charges for media a bit strict. A simple workaround would be to send the person a blank CD or other disk and some IRC's. I am assuming that IRC's are not considered a form of currency. If your local Post Office does not know that an IRC is, then talk directly to the Post Master for that Office. There is no reason for a Postal Employee to not know their job. I spent 8.5 years as a federal employee, so I know the power of the chain of command. This distribution of the source code including the changes/additions/modifications/adaptions made by any author may not be made in electronic form other than on a physical disk. I really don't understand not allowing distribution via anything other than sneaker-net. What would be the consequences of the Registrar, putting the Official Distribution Source Code of SMSQ/E on a web server? It could be arranged that the requester must give their name and address before getting the Source Code. As someone that is about 5,000 miles from the Registrar, mail can take an awfully long time. Plus, someone like Thierry, sitting on a French Naval ship in the Persian Gulf, mail is very slow to come. As a veteran I try to keep fellow service members in mind. Distribution of the
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Dave Walker wrote: Coming back to the original source code license, there has been a lot of discussion about only sending the source via physical media. I agree very strongly with others comments that this seems a needless restriction. It seems to add cost and inconvenience for very little gain. It is very easy to provide a secure web site that only allows authorised users to download any file(s) - and also records every such download if that matters! If necessary such a site could be partitioned so that there were different levels of security around different files. Indeed. As a developer, one would expect to be kept up-to-date with the latest sources automatically. To expect developers to do so by mail, at their own expense, when there are instant methods available that incur no expense and enhance communication between the various developers is indeed a needless restriction. Separately, and this is complex because of my situation, but let's put it this way... Peter Graf and I do not exactly see eye to eye. We have agreed to disagree when it comes to developing hardware for the Qx0. However, I must stand up 100% in support for him. The resellers do not wish to sell a Qx0 version of SMSQ. The only way for them to supply Qx0 in this situation is to become resellers themselves. This is a distraction from what they're trying to do. Also, they may not be qualified, or may consider other development tasks more pressing, than supporting SMSQ users. If I end up handling hardware sales, would I have to become an SMSQ reseller? I'm not qualified. But if the resellers declined to offer the ZYXABC version of SMSQ (as they have done with the Qx0) I would have no choice but to find someone who can do it, and add those support costs to the cost of the product. Notwithstanding that I would have to keep requesting and paying for current sources just to stay in tune. I think any reseller should be required to provide all versions of SMSQ or none at all. Anyway, the situation is not a happy one. There are two main hardware developers who would need to include SMSQ with a new product. DD, and the Goldfire outfit. DD appears to be sidelined out of SMSQ, and if I were selling Goldfires I would be sidelined too, just because of the development hurdles being thrown down before me. Now, what is the objective of this license? Dave
RE: [ql-users] gold card and qubide
I did this but i still have got the same problem. I also tried another power supply but all i get is a blank screen after the first reset. Could it be the ql is not getting enough power ? Has anyone got a setup like mine working ? Henk Verbeek. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Ron Dunnett Verzonden: vrijdag 17 mei 2002 20:03 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide Remove the 68008 it is not needed anymore if you have a Gold or Super Gold Card. That normally cures the problem you are having. Ron - Original Message - From: henk verbeek [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:36 PM Subject: [ql-users] gold card and qubide Hello everyone, I have a standard ql with a qubide and a gold card. If i connect the gold card or the qubide separatly they work fine but as soon as i put them together (quibide first and after this the gold card at the left hand slot of my classic ql) the ql doesn't boot up anymore. I already tried the jumpersettings j3+j4+j5 and j3+j4 only but it still doesn't work. I know its possible to let them work together but how? Does anyone have a clue ? or do i have to buy an mplane or something like that ? Henk Verbeek
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 11:48:30AM +0200, Peter Graf wrote: As requested by Wolfgang Lenerz, I visit ql-users for a statement about the SMSQ/E license. The past: 1. SMSQ/E was simply a commercial product from commercial work. It was developed and supported by Tony Tebby for native 68k hardware platforms, e.g. GoldCard, QXL, SuperGoldCard, Q40, Q60. My part in financing was for the development of the Q40 specific things including highcolor. I haven't gained rights over SMSQ/E, nor did I expect that. It is true that Tony did not implement everything completely, e.g. he promised the code would be free from non-68060 instructions, but I do *not* criticise Tony therefore. Overall I am very happy with all the efforts Tony put into Q40 SMSQ/E!!! Fine. (Richard Zidlicky was wrong here IMO.) I appreciate his efforts but there is a few details that remain to be fixed. Notably hard disk support can't be regarded sufficient. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
- Original Message - From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SNIP that is the optimist view. However there is nothing in the license that would guarantee me that the source code would be continuously available in the future. There is nothing in the license that would guarantee me any of my changes will get back into official SMSQ. There is nothing in the license to guarantee me that official or inofficial binaries of SMSQ will be available. There is also nothing in the licence that will guarantee that you will not be run over by a bus - stop being silly. All of this continual bickering and hair splitting is getting needlessly introspective -- Roy Wood From a users viewpoint when TT allowed smsqe to become open I reckon many users thought GREAT news as TT was giving part time support to it ( understandable and no disrespect intended ), we looked forward to further development and goodies that would justify our continued use of the various system that use it. Well I have to tell you guys if as much effort had gone into code as has gone into nitpicking and general etimewasting then we would have the Space Shuttle running on SMSQE by now ( just don't enter any very long planet names though ). Just do it - while I still have the faith all the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide
Hi I thought removing the 68008 only applied to Super Gold Card, but was still required on the Gold Card? Nice to hear your still there Ron Regards Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: henk verbeek [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 9:46 AM Subject: RE: [ql-users] gold card and qubide I did this but i still have got the same problem. I also tried another power supply but all i get is a blank screen after the first reset. Could it be the ql is not getting enough power ? Has anyone got a setup like mine working ? Henk Verbeek. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Ron Dunnett Verzonden: vrijdag 17 mei 2002 20:03 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide Remove the 68008 it is not needed anymore if you have a Gold or Super Gold Card. That normally cures the problem you are having. Ron - Original Message - From: henk verbeek [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:36 PM Subject: [ql-users] gold card and qubide Hello everyone, I have a standard ql with a qubide and a gold card. If i connect the gold card or the qubide separatly they work fine but as soon as i put them together (quibide first and after this the gold card at the left hand slot of my classic ql) the ql doesn't boot up anymore. I already tried the jumpersettings j3+j4+j5 and j3+j4 only but it still doesn't work. I know its possible to let them work together but how? Does anyone have a clue ? or do i have to buy an mplane or something like that ? Henk Verbeek
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
- Original Message - From: Bill Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code - Original Message - From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SNIP that is the optimist view. However there is nothing in the license that would guarantee me that the source code would be continuously available in the future. There is nothing in the license that would guarantee me any of my changes will get back into official SMSQ. There is nothing in the license to guarantee me that official or inofficial binaries of SMSQ will be available. There is also nothing in the licence that will guarantee that you will not be run over by a bus - stop being silly. All of this continual bickering and hair splitting is getting needlessly introspective -- Roy Wood From a users viewpoint when TT allowed smsqe to become open I reckon many users thought GREAT news as TT was giving part time support to it ( understandable and no disrespect intended ), we looked forward to further development and goodies that would justify our continued use of the various system that use it. Well I have to tell you guys if as much effort had gone into code as has gone into nitpicking and general etimewasting then we would have the Space Shuttle running on SMSQE by now ( just don't enter any very long planet names though ). Just do it - while I still have the faith all the best - Bill I agree entirely with Bill, having spent many thousands of pounds running several businesses with QLs and SMSQ/E, including Q40. We stopped because of the lack of development keeping pace with the market. I was delighted when SMSQ/E was made open source, and looked forward to a revival in QL fortunes, alas, this is not so, its not to be open source, which is more to do with vested interests trying to 'grab the ball', than with what will be best for QL users, and th QL. I may say that if TT had provided the support promised to Qubide, Q40 and SMSQ/E, we may have still been running 8 QLs full time, and spending a goodly sum each year with traders, to TTs benefit. I, as a user, only see that TT at last has given access to code, that is long overdue( never mind copyrights, what about my rights, I have paid good money on the promise of continuing development. I feel badly treated in this.) and should have happened years ago. Now the pack are fighting over the bones. At the end of the day it is we users who decide to continue with support for the QL, or to go elsewhere and let the predators starve to death. Whats wrong with the Linux setup, it works. SMSQ would work as well, even if there were a couple of versions, that at least adds competition to differant systems and leads to healthy development. Tony, Dave sorry to punctuation and grammar, can't see keyboard for red clouds Regards to all Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 07:50:06AM +0100, Dexter wrote: If I end up handling hardware sales, would I have to become an SMSQ reseller? I'm not qualified. But if the resellers declined to offer the ZYXABC version of SMSQ (as they have done with the Qx0) I would have no choice but to find someone who can do it, and add those support costs to the cost of the product. Notwithstanding that I would have to keep requesting and paying for current sources just to stay in tune. unfortunately your inconvenience is only the smaller problem. The bigger one - what happens if you are fed up and go out of business? There are perhaps 100s of users with your hardware without any reseller, so to get SMSQ updates they would have to become their own resellers. Of course people will be wary to buy your HW in first place unless they know for sure they will not be locked out like that. Surely this is not the intention of the license? Richard
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 01:05:42AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: Interestingly, not all legitimate commercial interests are served equally humbly here. When Peter Graf tried to acquire the right to give away (for free) SMSQ-Q40 binaries in exchange for a substantial payment to TT he was turned down (not because he offered too little money btw). This means that Peter has no means to ensure that SMSQ will be available for the Q40/Q60 in the future - and that after having invested horrendeous amounts of money into SMSQ development for functionality that isn't even implemented until today. This line of argument is spurious. SMSQ/E for the Q40/Q60 will continue to exist and Peter or you have the right to apply to become an official reseller. Your only commitment in this regard is that you offer support for the versions you sell and you pay the licence fee for the copies you sell. You can sell them at cost if you want that is up to you. I will not be selling Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E and neither will Jochen so the ball is in your court. thanks for clarifying this. Again apply to be a =n official reseller and follow the rules. Give it away for free if you want but pay TT for each one sold. It is that simple. As far as I can tell this was exactly what Peter wanted - what was the problem? Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:52:06AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: This is surely not a problem because the technically advanced can have the source code and do the fixes, pass these back to Richard and he can get them into an 'official' UQLX SMSQ/E. that is the optimist view. However there is nothing in the license that would guarantee me that the source code would be continuously available in the future. There is nothing in the license that would guarantee me any of my changes will get back into official SMSQ. There is nothing in the license to guarantee me that official or inofficial binaries of SMSQ will be available. There is also nothing in the licence that will guarantee that you will not be run over by a bus - stop being silly. Thanks for the hint, I will try other methods to minimise the risk of beeing run over by a bus. Unfortunately there is not much I could do to minimise the risks inherent to this license - silly or not I am simply not interested to put any effort into SMSQ under this conditions. All of this continual bickering and hair splitting is getting needlessly introspective You have easy to speak when you can change the license to your liking whenever you feel like that. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Dave wrote: Peter Graf and I do not exactly see eye to eye. We have agreed to disagree when it comes to developing hardware for the Qx0. Yes, and it is perfectly OK by me, if you prefer to develop for Goldfire or the black QL! They may need your help even more than Qx0. Just imagine today's license situation had already existed when Q40 hardware was finished. Not the slightest chance to have SMSQ/E on Q40. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Mike wrote: I agree entirely with Bill, having spent many thousands of pounds running several businesses with QLs and SMSQ/E, including Q40. We stopped because of the lack of development keeping pace with the market. I was delighted when SMSQ/E was made open source, and looked forward to a revival in QL fortunes, alas, this is not so, its not to be open source, which is more to do with vested interests trying to 'grab the ball', than with what will be best for QL users, and th QL. I hereby state that I don't try to grab SMSQ/E and will agree to the usual existing OpenSource licenses. Furthermore I offer to pay a substantial amount of money if SMSQ/E becomes free for all. The only thing I ask for, is to give the non-commercial developers we need for Q40 and Q60 a *real* opportunity to do their work! Peter
[ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Hi all, I have two proposals for a compromise, that take the commercial needs of Jochen Merz and Roy Wood into account: Proposal 1: Keep the appointed resellers. Make sure that nobody can get their support, without purchasing the binary from them! E.g. this could be done by registering the users who purchased it. This way, everybody who wants their support and handbooks, is forced to pay. The income for the resellers for their support is then secured. But also allow the free distribution of executables again (first license), so non-commercial developmers are sure their work won't be lost or abused. The appointed resellers will also benefit if there is more non-commercial work. They are allowed to sell it! Proposal 2: Maybe the QPC traders can not agree to the above, because they need to keep QPC SMSQ/E strictly commercial. OK by me. But then allow me to make a substantial payment of money to TT, so at least Qx0 SMSQ/E can be freely distributed by everybody, with the same guaranty for the future. Still allow the resellers to sell it if they wish. We can still share the same source tree maintained by the registrar. (Actually my proposals have already been turned down, by unknown persons who influence the decisions of the registrar. But maybe some public help will allow him to reconsider.) All the best Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Bill Waugh wrote: Well I have to tell you guys if as much effort had gone into code as has gone into nitpicking and general etimewasting then we would have the Space Shuttle running on SMSQE by now ( just don't enter any very long planet names though ). I wouldn't really call it nitpicking or timewasting. The license under which SMSQ is eventually released will have a dramatic effect on the future of the platform. A few of us developers (I count myself as the most recent developer, but many others have been around since the mid-80's) have reservations about this license. Lots of heated discussion, little progress. Very important, all the same. I've already made my business decision. SMSQ under this license would not be relevant to the future of the QL scene, because no commercial developer could work with any feeling of security under it. If people aren't comfortable, they'll use something else they are comfortable with. D
Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide
In a message dated 19/05/02 19:08:23 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your problem is not enough power coming out of the standard QL. Behind the microdrives is a voltage regulator with three pins, bent over and attached to a heat sink. This needs a much more powerful regulator which can be got easily in this country. You will need an electronics expert. Hope that this makes sense. Regards, Peter Fox I have a QPower regulator or two which were developed for the QL - £5 each including postage if anyone is interested.. Rich Mellor RWAP Software 7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR TEL: 01977 614299 http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide
On Sun, 19 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a QPower regulator or two which were developed for the QL - £5 each including postage if anyone is interested.. An alternative approach, when QPower upgrades are no longer available, is to replace the 1A 7805 with a 1.5A 7805 voltage regulator. The 1A version when worked hard tends to be bumping up against its thermal protection and shutting down. The 1.5A version works better under heavier loads. Dave
RE: [ql-users] gold card and qubide
Thanks for all your advice but i finally got it to work. I put the qubide and the goldcard together and got my multimeter. I measured if all the signals from the ql expansion connector where put through the qubide to the gold card. I discovered this way that there was no through connection from the sp0,sp1,sp2,sp3 from the qubide to the gold card. After this i got my ql advanced user guide and saw these where the peripheral select lines so i just soldered 4 wires between the quibide and the gold card to make the connection and viola it worked right away. I am happy everything is working now but the way in which i succeeded is a bit strange i cannot believe it has to be done this way but i made the gamble and it works. Is it normal that the qubide doesn't put these signals through ?? Henk Verbeek. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Peter Fox Verzonden: zondag 19 mei 2002 20:04 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: RE: [ql-users] gold card and qubide In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sun, 19 May 2002 10:46:43 +0200 (henk verbeek) wrote: I did this but i still have got the same problem. I also tried another power supply but all i get is a blank screen after the first reset. Could it be the ql is not getting enough power ? Has anyone got a setup like mine working ? Henk Verbeek. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Ron Dunnett Verzonden: vrijdag 17 mei 2002 20:03 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide Remove the 68008 it is not needed anymore if you have a Gold or Super Gold Card. That normally cures the problem you are having. Ron - Original Message - From: henk verbeek [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:36 PM Subject: [ql-users] gold card and qubide Hello everyone, I have a standard ql with a qubide and a gold card. If i connect the gold card or the qubide separatly they work fine but as soon as i put them together (quibide first and after this the gold card at the left hand slot of my classic ql) the ql doesn't boot up anymore. I already tried the jumpersettings j3+j4+j5 and j3+j4 only but it still doesn't work. I know its possible to let them work together but how? Does anyone have a clue ? or do i have to buy an mplane or something like that ? Henk Verbeek Your problem is not enough power coming out of the standard QL. Behind the microdrives is a voltage regulator with three pins, bent over and attached to a heat sink. This needs a much more powerful regulator which can be got easily in this country. You will need an electronics expert. Hope that this makes sense. Regards, Peter Fox
[ql-users] Documentation
Tim Swenson wrote: Printed Manual When I got SMSQ/E I did not get a full printed manual. I got a hardware guide and a very short guide to SMSQ/E for the Q40 (bought mine 2 years ago). Well, then it can not be from me or DD Systems. We supply with each board: - General SMSQ/E Manual at the latest version (Paper) - Qx0 Specific SMSQ/E Additions (Paper) - Mainboard User's Manual (Paper) - Mainboard Hardware Manual (Paper) - Graphic Device Interface Documentation (Paper) - Support disks with recent software and instructions (3 HD Disks) Sorry we are not certified SMSQ/E resellers. Ask your certified SMSQ/E reseller, who provided your board with incomplete docs, for support :-) Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I am sorry to say that I am very, very disappointed. I have been a loyal QL user from nearly day 1, have never made any money off of it, but keep going at it. I am now working extremely hard on QDT as some of you may know. To be honest, it is a labor of love. I will be happy if I ever make enough money to pay for my trips to the shows that I do get the chance to attend. I am very appreciative of all who have kept the QL alive. Some make money off if (not much I bet) and others don't. This includes both those involved in the hardware and software; all very much appreciated, whether or not I use their product. Everyone counts in this group. I recently just joined this email list because I was hoping to get some help on some implementation problems that I am having with the QDT project. Instead I have been getting this stream of emails that, to be very blunt, sounds like a lot on non-productive whining. I understand that there are major disagreements in the license plans for SMSQ/E. But I would hope that, instead of putting the dirty laundry out for the public to see (and it is very disappointing to have to see all this), that the parties who are involved would try to have some constructive and pro-active direct contact amongst themselves to resolve the disagreements. And, as it is in the real world, not everything is going to be perfect for everyone. The parties involved need to step back, take a breath, try to understand what is important to them AND to the others. And then, and only then, with that understanding and acceptance, come up with some real proposals that try to do the best for all involved. I will continue to work on QDT. I made a decision a long time ago that it will require SMSQ/E to run as there are some major pieces that I need from SMSQ/E to to it properly without having to write a tremendous amount of additional code. I would hope that everyone can come to an agreement about this license that will support SMSQ/E for all systems currently available which will allow QDT to also run on them. Just as a final reality check, until a few months ago, SMSQ/E was not open source or anything else. It was being maintained by Tony and a few vendors who put a lot of effort into getting changes done as required to run on different systems and to add important capabilities (such as color drivers). And I suspect that there hasn't been much money made off of it for some time for anyone. As far as I can see, with the new licensing being worked out, everyone should try to make the best of it for everyone, instead of making it ideal for themselves. I hope that this didn't come over too bluntly, but I have to deal with disagreements much larger than this everyday in my 'real' job and we get them resolved, without resorting to the kind of stuff that I have been reading for the last couple of days. I really enjoy working on my system and my development of QDT. So, please guys, just find a way to resolve this and get on with it. Jim
RE: [ql-users] gold card and qubide
I used a Gold card with Qubide for some years and found that some QLs would not work with this combination but all worked OK with Trump card Qubide. Never did find out why, luckily had many QLs picked up from boot sales etc. Regards John *** John Rawden St.Leonards-on-Sea East Sussex Running Linux on a Q40 On Sun, 19 May 2002, henk verbeek wrote: I did this but i still have got the same problem. I also tried another power supply but all i get is a blank screen after the first reset. Could it be the ql is not getting enough power ? Has anyone got a setup like mine working ? Henk Verbeek. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Ron Dunnett Verzonden: vrijdag 17 mei 2002 20:03 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide Remove the 68008 it is not needed anymore if you have a Gold or Super Gold Card. That normally cures the problem you are having. Ron - Original Message - From: henk verbeek [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:36 PM Subject: [ql-users] gold card and qubide Hello everyone, I have a standard ql with a qubide and a gold card. If i connect the gold card or the qubide separatly they work fine but as soon as i put them together (quibide first and after this the gold card at the left hand slot of my classic ql) the ql doesn't boot up anymore. I already tried the jumpersettings j3+j4+j5 and j3+j4 only but it still doesn't work. I know its possible to let them work together but how? Does anyone have a clue ? or do i have to buy an mplane or something like that ? Henk Verbeek
Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide
On 19/05/02 at 19:21 Dexter wrote: On 19 /05/02 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a QPower regulator or two which were developed for the QL - £5 each including postage if anyone is interested.. An alternative approach, when QPower upgrades are no longer available, is to replace the 1A 7805 with a 1.5A 7805 voltage regulator. The 1A version when worked hard tends to be bumping up against its thermal protection and shutting down. The 1.5A version works better under heavier loads. Neither of which have any relevance since neither the Qubide or the GC applied to a regular QL power from the 5V supply. The regulator in the QL only powers the QL. The Qubide also hardly uses any current at all anyway. You may have a problem if it's an older GC, in which case it does not supply two address lines (A18 and A19), which need to be pulled low using resistors. This can be done by inserting 1k or so resistors into the relevant 68008 socket pins (there are two ground pins which helps). The Qubide should be set to the address of the ROM slot, $0C000. If the GC does not start, you may indeed have a power supply problem but if so it is to be found in the power supply 'brick'. Also, it is possible that a line going from the QL expansion port to the Qubide through-port is missing or has somehow failed. The missing line is a candidate in case you are using one of the pre-production Qubides (there seem to be one or two floating around!), these look slightly different than the production version - they have a gray PCB and are slightly bigger. Nasta
RE: [ql-users] gold card and qubide
On 19/05/02 at 20:53 henk verbeek wrote: Thanks for all your advice but i finally got it to work. I put the qubide and the goldcard together and got my multimeter. I measured if all the signals from the ql expansion connector where put through the qubide to the gold card. I discovered this way that there was no through connection from the sp0,sp1,sp2,sp3 from the qubide to the gold card. After this i got my ql advanced user guide and saw these where the peripheral select lines so i just soldered 4 wires between the quibide and the gold card to make the connection and viola it worked right away. I am happy everything is working now but the way in which i succeeded is a bit strange i cannot believe it has to be done this way but i made the gamble and it works. Is it normal that the qubide doesn't put these signals through ?? Henk Verbeek. Yes, it is not necessary for these lines to be passed, because neither the Qubide nor the GC (strictly speaking) use them as they were intended (Qubide does not use them at all). These lines are grounded on the QL motherboard (you can check that with a meter!). The GC/SGC use these as extra ground lines figuring they will be plugged into a regular QL. Apparently, this may be an issue with your GC. AFAIK there are 3 versions of the GC PCB but up to now I was not aware this should make any difference on any of them - maybe there are more versions that I don't know of? These lines are not used as intended on any current peripheral and in the future will be tied to ground on anything I'll make. Nasta
Re: [ql-users] QL Disk interfaces - URGENT REQUEST -
Rich Mellor wrote: There seems to be a dire shortage of these at the moment. Roy is not responding to my emails, so I do not know if he is getting them and has any disk interfaces left!! Does anyone else have any for sale?? I have 2, Technology Research Ltd and Micro Peripherals ones. -- Tarquin Mills ACCUS (Anglia Classic Computer Users Society) http://www.planet14.sonow4u.co.uk/comp/accus/
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], James Hunkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I am sorry to say that I am very, very disappointed. I have been a loyal QL user from nearly day 1, have never made any money off of it, but keep going at it. I am now working extremely hard on QDT as some of you may know. To be honest, it is a labor of love. I will be happy if I ever make enough money to pay for my trips to the shows that I do get the chance to attend. QDT seems a very interesting development. A GUI would put 'QL_ware' into the frame with modern OS's. I learn't computing on non-GUI machines, yet I now use the GUI's available for other OS's all the time. I haven't commented on QDT before ... yet if you need any help with user testing, then I could oblige. I am very appreciative of all who have kept the QL alive. Some make money off if (not much I bet) and others don't. This includes both those involved in the hardware and software; all very much appreciated, whether or not I use their product. Everyone counts in this group. As are we all ... I recently just joined this email list because I was hoping to get some help on some implementation problems that I am having with the QDT project. Instead I have been getting this stream of emails that, to be very blunt, sounds like a lot on non-productive whining. These discussions come and go ... as they saying goes put group of experts in the same room and they will never agree :-) I understand that there are major disagreements in the license plans for SMSQ/E. But I would hope that, instead of putting the dirty laundry out for the public to see (and it is very disappointing to have to see all this), that the parties who are involved would try to have some constructive and pro-active direct contact amongst themselves to resolve the disagreements. I believe thrashing out the arguments is actually very healthy. And, as it is in the real world, not everything is going to be perfect for everyone. The parties involved need to step back, take a breath, try to understand what is important to them AND to the others. And then, and only then, with that understanding and acceptance, come up with some real proposals that try to do the best for all involved. I will continue to work on QDT. I made a decision a long time ago that it will require SMSQ/E to run as there are some major pieces that I need from SMSQ/E to to it properly without having to write a tremendous amount of additional code. I would hope that everyone can come to an agreement about this license that will support SMSQ/E for all systems currently available which will allow QDT to also run on them. Just as a final reality check, until a few months ago, SMSQ/E was not open source or anything else. It was being maintained by Tony and a few vendors who put a lot of effort into getting changes done as required to run on different systems and to add important capabilities (such as color drivers). And I suspect that there hasn't been much money made off of it for some time for anyone. As far as I can see, with the new licensing being worked out, everyone should try to make the best of it for everyone, instead of making it ideal for themselves. I hope that this didn't come over too bluntly, but I have to deal with disagreements much larger than this everyday in my 'real' job and we get them resolved, without resorting to the kind of stuff that I have been reading for the last couple of days. I really enjoy working on my system and my development of QDT. So, please guys, just find a way to resolve this and get on with it. I believe it will resolve ... even if it seems fraught when written down in emails. Face to face discussions most often resolve the main issues anyway. -- Malcolm Cadman
[ql-users] QDT
QDT seems a very interesting development. A GUI would put 'QL_ware' into the frame with modern OS's. I learn't computing on non-GUI machines, yet I now use the GUI's available for other OS's all the time. I haven't commented on QDT before ... yet if you need any help with user testing, then I could oblige. Actually, while QDT started, as you say, as a desktop GUI, it is growing rather dynamically. It turns out, as most of us realize, there are a lot of capabilities available for the QL thanks to different people who developed things like FileInfo, Scratch, Screen Dazzler, pointer environment, etc. However, many users (including myself) have not taken advantage of all of them due to knowledge limits and/or time constraints. So QDT will be trying to give easy and clear access to many of these capabilities under its desktop GUI environment. After the US QL show in a couple of weeks, I will start working on updating my websight. The update will show hints at a lot of the 'new' interfaces to the different QL capabilities. I suspect that it will take 3-4 weeks after the show and I will let everyone know when the update is completed. I will be showing some of the interfaces at the US show for those who can attend. The beta testing will be done by a small and tightly 'controlled' group (resources and time are a huge problem for me - as they are for most people). I will keep your offer in mind when the time approaches. Cheers, Jim
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I agree entirely with Bill, having spent many thousands of pounds running several businesses with QLs and SMSQ/E, including Q40. We stopped because of the lack of development keeping pace with the market. I was delighted when SMSQ/E was made open source, and looked forward to a revival in QL fortunes, alas, this is not so, its not to be open source, which is more to do with vested interests trying to 'grab the ball', than with what will be best for QL users, Not true really. The source is open. You can get it and read it and change it. All we are trying to do is to ensure that released version have been properly tested, are stable and will work with existing software as best we can. This is in the interests of QL users I feel. and th QL. I may say that if TT had provided the support promised to Qubide, Q40 and SMSQ/E, we may have still been running 8 QLs full time, and spending a goodly sum each year with traders, to TTs benefit. I don't really see what TT had to do with the Qubide but the rumours about what was about to appear spread very fast. I, as a user, only see that TT at last has given access to code, that is long overdue( never mind copyrights, what about my rights, I have paid good money on the promise of continuing development. I feel badly treated in this.) Why so ? There was continued development for a long time. The user base has fallen a lot and TT can no longer afford to support it. To be truthful the remaining traders can no longer afford to support it but we do because we have made many friends over the years and won't be letting them down. and should have happened years ago. Now the pack are fighting over the bones. At the end of the day it is we users who decide to continue with support for the QL, or to go elsewhere and let the predators starve to death. I don't think any one is being a predator here. There is no money being made on SMSQ/E. Whats wrong with the Linux setup, it works. SMSQ would work as well, even if there were a couple of versions, that at least adds competition to differant systems and leads to healthy development. See my previous comments on that. We are too small a community and have too few software writers for different flavours of SMSQ/E to co-exist. If we have some things that will only run on one version and some that will only run on another we will lose the few users we have left. -- 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
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
As far as I can tell this was exactly what Peter wanted - what was the problem? He wanted a one off payment and exemption as far as I was told. -- 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
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Peter Graf and I do not exactly see eye to eye. We have agreed to disagree when it comes to developing hardware for the Qx0. However, I must stand up 100% in support for him. The resellers do not wish to sell a Qx0 version of SMSQ. The only way for them to supply Qx0 in this situation is to become resellers themselves. This is a distraction from what they're trying to do. Also, they may not be qualified, or may consider other development tasks more pressing, than supporting SMSQ users. They cannot sell a SMSQ/E driven version of the Q40/Q60 without a copy of SMSQ/E or it would not work. Therefore they have to become resellers by default. If their product had a BIOS as PCs do then they could opt out. I have opted out of selling Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E not because I want to but because it is un-necessary. The O/S is on the chip when the user buys it and everything else is an upgrade and therefore freely distributable as far as I can see. The only obligation is that the upgrades are official versions. It costs nothing to the supplier except the cost of distribution and it is up to him how much he charges. If I end up handling hardware sales, would I have to become an SMSQ reseller? I'm not qualified. But if the resellers declined to offer the ZYXABC version of SMSQ (as they have done with the Qx0) I would have no choice but to find someone who can do it, and add those support costs to the cost of the product. Notwithstanding that I would have to keep requesting and paying for current sources just to stay in tune. If you want to put SMSQ/E on the GoldFire Chip then fine. Pay the fee, be a reseller and the same applies to you as the above. I did not say I would not support users of the Q40 SMSQ/E if they come to me for help and I would be happy to do the same for the GoldFire because I would buy one and even offer to sell them for you. I think any reseller should be required to provide all versions of SMSQ or none at all. As I said above I sell all of the software versions but the Q40/Q60 version is a hardware one so I cannot sell it as such. If you have a Q 40 I can offer to get a ROM blow for you and software updates are free apart from postage. I already supplied most of the people who bought a Q40 from me with several free updates by post and the Internet. Anyway, the situation is not a happy one. There are two main hardware developers who would need to include SMSQ with a new product. DD, and the Goldfire outfit. DD appears to be sidelined out of SMSQ, and if I were selling Goldfires I would be sidelined too, just because of the development hurdles being thrown down before me. No not true. We have sidelined no one. -- 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
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Oh dear here we go again. I have two proposals for a compromise, that take the commercial needs of Jochen Merz and Roy Wood into account: Proposal 1: Keep the appointed resellers. Make sure that nobody can get their support, without purchasing the binary from them! E.g. this could be done by registering the users who purchased it. This way, everybody who wants their support and handbooks, is forced to pay. The income for the resellers for their support is then secured. But also allow the free distribution of executables again (first license), so non-commercial developmers are sure their work won't be lost or abused. The appointed resellers will also benefit if there is more non-commercial work. They are allowed to sell it! We will make no money from this. By the time we have paid for disks, printing and all of the other extras such as advertising etc. we will be out of pocket. Nice try but it does not hold water. Most people own SMSQ/E in one form or another so we are not snowed under with users clamouring for their copy even at, what is now, half price. (Actually my proposals have already been turned down, by unknown persons who influence the decisions of the registrar. But maybe some public help will allow him to reconsider.) Keep taking the anti paranoia pill one day they will take effect. Even the registrar was against your proposal. I was actually voting in your favour on this provided you kept the code official and it was not a 'patched' or otherwise unofficial version. -- 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
Re: [ql-users] Documentation
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Tim Swenson wrote: Printed Manual When I got SMSQ/E I did not get a full printed manual. I got a hardware guide and a very short guide to SMSQ/E for the Q40 (bought mine 2 years ago). Well, then it can not be from me or DD Systems. We supply with each board: - General SMSQ/E Manual at the latest version (Paper) - Qx0 Specific SMSQ/E Additions (Paper) - Mainboard User's Manual (Paper) - Mainboard Hardware Manual (Paper) - Graphic Device Interface Documentation (Paper) - Support disks with recent software and instructions (3 HD Disks) Sorry we are not certified SMSQ/E resellers. Ask your certified SMSQ/E reseller, who provided your board with incomplete docs, for support :-) I supplied the full SMSQ/E manual which comes with all copies of SMSQ/E for all platforms. I also supplied all of the hardware documentation I had received from Peter Graf (about 20 pages I think) and a set of pages on the Colour drivers which I had been sent by TT. That is, in fact what is described above. I also collated all of the available software from the Q 40 which was, at the time sketchy because Tim was an early adopter. You should really try not to be so smug Peter. -- 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
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Roy Wood wrote: Distribution of executables for free was always forbidden. Not true. I refer to the official statement made in public, not to the secrets of your meeting. The fact that it was not forbidden in the beginning, was a reason why some developers considered to work under this license at all! Some developers may still have missed this change. *** Distribution of executables for free was *not* forbidden in the first official statement! This has changed and caused severe implications on the availability of non-commercial work. *** You do like to split the words don't you ? It may have been missed out of the official statement but it was discussed and agreed at the very first meeting. You knew about the meeting and were going to come but decided not to. You mislead the public here. I became sick with influenza, staying in bed all week, another person was known to be on vacation, TT was not attending, and DD Systems was not invited. Also I was not informed the Eindhoven meeting was to *decide* anything. I would never expect such a meeting without TT. Everyone was invited via the message on the Internet. We were expecting you and I was not told to you had a cold and could not come. I was told that you had decided not to come and that was what I said. The meeting was not decide anything but to get the framework set out and that is what we did. If you want to have a voice you have to make the effort. Why should TT be there? He had clearly given his rights to Wolfgang and he said that on this user group. Just by the way, my hearing is not well enough to completely follow a such a complicated negotiation in *spoken* English. If we had shouted in your ear you would not have 'listened'. Fine. Develop it. Get it accepted as an authorised version. Sell it for 10 Euros or give it away for free. Just pay TT 10 Euros for each one sold. No problem. Unfortunately the license doesn't say that. Can I have this statement, without additions that make it void, from the registrar, and guarantees it won't change in the future ??? What ? A large problem would still remain: My *person* is no guaranty to non-commercial developers. I can get sick, or whatever. Their rights should be in the *license*. If they are not, I can hardly expect them to work for Qx0 SMSQ/E. These two comments smack of paranoia. [...] All of this is yet more paranoia. All the statements I made are clearly given by the license. If you want something else than the license says, change the liscense. I will be very happy to admit that you are right, then. There are extremly strict conditions to ensure everything *you* want. Why not rights for non-commercial development as well? That is something we have been discussing. [...] We all decided [...] This and other remarks suggest repeatedly that you participate in *decisions* about the license. So it is not just the registar and TT. Is this correct? No I reply when I am asked. Have you paid *more* for SMSQ/E development than I have, so *you* have the right to participate in decisions about SMSQ/E, and I have not? You have as much right to participate in the discussions as I have and I suspect that over the eight years I have been selling SMSQ/E and QPC 2 I have contributed more to TT than you have. You are, in fact participating in discussion right now. -- 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
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Where is Quantas input in this matter, I thought they contributed to the development of SMSQ. Why are they not distributing an official version, and as members will no doubt want to help develop SMSQ, they would be well suited to handling this. Regards Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code All of this continual bickering and hair splitting is getting needlessly introspective You have easy to speak when you can change the license to your liking whenever you feel like that. I have no power over the licence. Only Wolfgang has that. He listens to me as much as he listens to you. In the end I am just one voice as are you. If he thought that your arguments or comments were better than he would go with yours because he has no commercial gain in the matter and ties to any of us. To put the record straight I was quite happy to accept no fee to TT this came from other areas and I was swayed by their arguments to agree. -- 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
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Roy wrote: Oh dear here we go again. I have two proposals for a compromise, that take the commercial needs of Jochen Merz and Roy Wood into account: Proposal 1: Keep the appointed resellers. Make sure that nobody can get their support, without purchasing the binary from them! E.g. this could be done by registering the users who purchased it. This way, everybody who wants their support and handbooks, is forced to pay. The income for the resellers for their support is then secured. But also allow the free distribution of executables again (first license), so non-commercial developmers are sure their work won't be lost or abused. The appointed resellers will also benefit if there is more non-commercial work. They are allowed to sell it! We will make no money from this. Of course you will, if you offer nice support and handbooks. Folks have no other way to get your support and handbooks except purchasing the binary from you!!! Don't underestimate that. There are thousands of companies working this way in the real world. This way they benefit from the fact that plenty of non-commercial work is done, which they can sell. (Actually my proposals have already been turned down, by unknown persons who influence the decisions of the registrar. But maybe some public help will allow him to reconsider.) Keep taking the anti paranoia pill one day they will take effect. Even the registrar was against your proposal. I was actually voting in your favour on this provided you kept the code official and it was not a 'patched' or otherwise unofficial version. OK. I have no objections the freely distributed code is restricted to the official versions. I can also destroy anything 'patched', if my proposal is accepted. Do you think we can agree on my proposal, then? Peter
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
At 07:18 AM 5/19/2002 +0100, you wrote: Timothy, When I got SMSQ/E from Jochen, I got: a) A generic SMSQ/E User Guide (38 pages) that was not machine specific b) Custom supplement pages for each hardware environment I bought (typically 6-10 pages) I agree that the SMSQ/E Reference manual is extra - but I do not think that is what was being refrred to. Dave I guess the point I was trying to make was that the 38 page guide was no where near comprehensive enough to document a full OS. I'm sure that it assumed that the user was already familiar with QDOS. The Gold Card/TKII manual was a little more in depth, as it only covered some extensions to the OS. The original poster said something about a printed handbook for SMSQ/E and I would expect a little more than a 38 page guide that barely covers the topics. Tim
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I guess you have to be European to become flame bait on this mailing list. Here I thought my last message about support and SMSQ/E would send electronic fire and brimstone heading my way. Instead, It seemed like it made not a single blip on the radar. So, I'll ask again, when we talk about support for SMSQ/E from the resellers (i.e. their value add), I don't know exactly what is meant. Does it mean bug fixes to SMSQ/E? Does it mean hard copy manuals? Does it mean hand-holding in getting SMSQ/E running and working? Does it means X free upgrades? Heck, is a less buggy version of SMSQ/E an upgrade? The license seems to make a big issue about the support from the vendors, but I really would like to know the extent and content of the support. I hope someone can educate me on this matter. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
OK, I've been reading the licence discussion for quite a while and I find it does make sense for a world where the following is clearly defined that: 1) A generic SMSQ core, common to ALL platforms (*) 2) SMSQ extensions, or more precisely, additions or changes to the core, start as a submissions to the registrar, and become, if accepted, a part of the next official core issue if aproved. 3) Add-ons, i.e. is everything that goes 'on top' of SMSQ but is not part of the core, and is probably speciffic to a particular platform. [Digression: (*) this 'common to all platforms' is a bit of an idealist view, a discussion for some other time] This may seem like an odd argument, but it is paramount for the issue of developement, support, distribution - not to mention that a clear definition of the above three is (or should be!) one of the main criteria used by the registrar to decide what becomes a part of SMSQ and what does not. If the above were true, whoever wants to have SMSQ on a different platform, would not strictly need to distribute the binary, but could instead point the users to one of the distributors, and offer the necessary add-ons to the core and a way to link everything, to make it work on that platform, removing the platform speciffic parts from under the coverage of the licence, and regulating the distribution and support for said as they see fit. In case a developer wants to do something with the core to enable new functionality, they would be able to get the official source under the conditions stipulated in the licence, see what and how would need changes, implement betas and have them distributed under the conditions of the licence (which I do find somewhat restrictive but not impossible), and eventually, propose their inclusion into the official generic core. Provided the registrar was convinced the proposed was or could be beneficial to everyone (**), it would then be included into the next official core, at which point the developer can use that to implement speciffic add-ons of their own, again handled outside of the core licence. [Digression: (**) a mechanism should be in place for the registrar to distribute certain beta versions simply because he would be in the best position to know the key developers for speciffic cases where a proposed change may have wide impact] The problem is, this is not the actual situation. Instead, we have SMSQ which has relatively monolitic parts some of which may be essential for one group and at the same time of no interest whatsoever for another. Because of the absurd idea that every platform or flavour thereof should have it's own SMSQ version, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to write a licence agreement which would satisfy everyone to an acceptable degree. Arguments like 'I paid for a feature and why should I submit it and have anyone but me benefit from it (financially)' are forever going to be oposed to 'I don't want to pay for anything because I only do things for free', and that's only the benign tip of the iceberg. We could collectively come up with a myriad scenarios in which any given wording of the licence would not work. I sincerely hope that not even an attempt will be made to cater for everything!!! What I would be doing to break this deadlock, is the following: get the current official source under the current licence. Have a good long look at it and figure out how to make a generic core from it. Then propose THAT to the registrar. Sounds like a lot of work for little gains? The way I see it, this may indeed be true in the short run. But if it's not ultimately done, we'll soon all be throwing in the towel because without this and a clear division what falls under the licence and what does not, i.e. without a clear picture of what SMSQ is and what it can grow into, the best we can hope for is for a situation where 'read TTs code' will be replaced by 'read ?s code' when it gets into the official release. NAsta
