Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 8 Apr 2002, at 17:25, Dexter wrote: If you resent that comment, I didn't explain it properly. Or I didn't understand it. Yes, Tony will make a little money from SMSQ. I doubt the resellers will - they'll probably cover costs. I was trying to say that some of the money should stay with the people that are doing the work - the resellers. They are FREE to fix the price they want to sell it at. If they only charge 10 EUR, all of that goes to TT. If they charge eur 1000, still only 10 of that goes to TT... Sorry I caused offense. Case of too big a point expressed in too few words ?:o) No offense. I think we're getting along admirably! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:01, Dexter wrote: This is a reply to some concerns raised by Dexter on the future Licence. Please read my more general reply first. (very large snip) Let me explain how this restriction relates to me, and how it makes SMSQ/E unusable to me. This is a real world case. This is a great example! I am developing an ARM-based microcomputer, in the traditional sense. It will be a single board, with all the interfaces built in. It will fit the QL form factor, and could fit in a QL case. It will need an OS, and parts of that OS will need to be optimized or even replaced to make the code run more quickly and 'safely' on uQLx, and with parts of the code being converted to native ARM assembly. I would have to submit my sources, which would imemdiately become publicly available whether I like it or not, Two replies here: 1/ You DO NOT HAVE TO SUBMIT YOUR SOURCES. I very much encourage you to do so, but you do not have to. BUT, only source submitted to me will be part of the official release versions. 2 / Even if you do submit your sources to me, they can be kept secret (except from me). See the more general reply for this. and which may not even be accepted. If they are not accepted, there is no way for me to use those modifications under the license. That is true. I would have to contact TT or yourself and negotiate the right to distribute, which would likely be declined as causing a code branch. Yes, this possibility exists. However, all I can say is that we are pretty reasonable. If you make a specific version of SMSQ/E for a very specific hardware, I fail to see why there should not be an official release version for that machine (with one proviso). You could be a reseller for SMSQ/E for that machine - and there you have it. The proviso mentioned above is that, if it is perceived that, ON PURPOSE, you make your version of SMSQ/E incompatible to the others, then I'd probably refuse to accept it. I don't know why anybody would do such a thing, but human nature being as it is... I would just talk to Lau and use Minerva if that was the case. I hope your fears are dispelled. I appreciate you want a co-ordinated road, but this rule doesn't just give a co-ordinated road, it gives no other roads whatsoever allowed for any commercial development whatsoever. This I don't agree with that, of course. The problem with control over anything is always that, to be effective, the control must be total, at least potentially. It is up to you (or me, in this case), to use this reasonably. I can't do more than assure you that this will be the case. No, this usually isn't the case in my experience. In this project there would be 2-3 developers/coders, and 4-5 others who would be beta testers. Firmware would initially be tested by the developers/coders, and once everything looks ok, the 4-5 non-paying testers would use the equipment, normally, and would find any interactions with other hardware/software that the three developers just do not have the time/equipment/range of hardware/combinations to do. The testing issue will be addressed in the short future. Any law has to be convenient in a society that people don't have to put themselves out to obey it. This is why everybody speeds and nobody robs banks... If the rule is just too inconvenient, people will ignore, circumvent or just make it irrelevant by using something else. To be quite frank : shudder. Ok, this is a bit OT, but, if you DO speed, and DO cause harm to anybody because of this, you WILL be punished. I know that people will always take shortcuts, but I've also heard people justify a bank robbery by saying that, after all, banks are insured and that nobody really loses any money when the bank is robbed. Needless to say, there again, I don't agree - but I DO see your point! Wolfgang, consider this a test. Like I said, this is *mostly* devil's advocate, though one rule does affect me so negatively it rules SMSQ out for a project I am doing. If the criticisms are voiced, the concerns raised, the issues discussed and reasoned and if necessary modifications made, everyone benefits. Yes! I'm not sure I passed the test, except for one aspect, i.e. that I try to reply to each concern, as it is voiced, in a civilized manner. I took my time doing it, but that, I hope, is OK. I would like to see this conversation remain as light as it is now. If it gets vitriolic, I shall withdraw, as that isn't constructive. So far, we're all doing really great :o) Entirely agreed! Wolfgang
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 16:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Might be an idea to get the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides to take the toys away again. Just an idea. it has happened before, but won't now. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:31, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Hey I have no problem with providing support on this but I don't see how many sales SMSQ/E would have in the US (apart from the few upgrades). That would be just a convenience service to the community rather than a business :-) That is very probable. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:56, Dexter wrote: (...) If a user already has a licensed copy of SMSQ, a developer should be entitled to include the modified or updated version at no cost to the user. This should be true for same version groups only - eg an upgrade from 2.X to 3.X would be chargeable but from 2.2 to 2.3 would not. Thoughts? This does seem reasonable, even though, this is not true as things stand now. Normally, a user is entitled to a free new version, if the previous version contains a bug that makes his version unuseable. All other versions are paid for. But I think something can be worked out - we only have to look at how thngs are being handled right now. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 9:24, Phoebus Dokos wrote: 1. The copyright for SMSQ/E is retained by Tony Tebby (Nothing weird here, just like Linux) Agreed. 1. There are (currently) two official distributors of LICENSED binaries and ONLY official Distributors can SELL SMSQ/E. The official resellers are the only source for binaries (unles you compile the source yourself). 2. The registrar (and only the registrar) is making available the SMSQ/E sources to anyone that wants them free of charge, provided that the person sends return postage in form of IRCs and Media for the sources to be put on. (See also No. 7 for the contradiction) OK. The registrar make available the official release version. I certify that the version you get from me is the latest official release version. 3. Any modifications CANNOT be publicised until approved by the registrar No, untrue. You can give the sources( with your changes) away, if this is free of charge etc... The registrat only cares about inclusion in the official rlease versions. 4. Any modifications/new code that is approved and entered in the source loses it's copyright from its author and derives the overall copyright status of SMSQ/E. NO, NO, NO. See my more general explanation. (In that aspect, modifications from 3rd parties on the modifications from the 2nd party does not need to include the writer's copyright message/license but only the SMSQ/E license) 5. ANYONE CAN create a distribution for his own use from the sources but cannot give it away to no one free of charge or otherwise Yes, you can give away the sources free of charge NOT the binaries. 6. It is STRICTLY prohibited for anyone to make the sources available on the internet (unless given specific permission to do so by the registrar or the copyright holder) yes. 7. It is NOT STRICTLY prohibited (but in any case requires prior approval) for a PD library/Shareware catalog/Individual to give away the SMSQ/E sources provided no fee is charged (same as no. 2) There is no contradictionbetween 2 7. You CAN get sources from the PD library.BUT they will not be the official release versions - these are only available from me. Okay that is it Please clarify If I got them right or wrong :-) If No. 7 is right and No. 2 is not, then I do volunteer to distribute the sources in the US, free of charge :-) as well Ok, I've put you down as somebody to send the official release version to... Oh, by the way: DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH. I'm not sure when I'll get the sources. Wolfgang
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:10, Dexter wrote: No offense, Wolfgang, but you don't seem to appreciate the gravity of your statement. No, I don't. Also, I'm not implying end users should be beta testers, just that beta testers shouldn't be required to be programmers too. Good, at least we see eye to eye on this! (...) There are two kinds of features involved. Both need to be handled differently. Soft features, which provide a functionality, API or interface for an application to use ina consistent manner, are very much the business of the maintainer and at the heart of what he is doing - it is through keeping these consistent that he ensures compatibility. Again, I agree completely. Hard features, which may require changes to the OS to make different hardware look alike to the OS and applications, are much harder for the maintainer to handle. He a) has to have a sample of the hardware, and b) has to have an in-depth knowledge of what changes were necessary to make it happen. Think of the implications. Does the maintainer buy the hardware, or is the developer required to give/loan a prototype to them? This is where the idea of key developers comes in. I can delegate those tasks to them! *shudders* same here. I don't think I'm going to devil's advocate that particular quandry any more - it's just getting too frightening persuing the ramifications... No, I can use all the help I can get so that we can hammer something out! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 13:02, Phoebus Dokos wrote: I sincerely fail to see the point in this. If you want to protect the vendors, it is indeed EXTREMELY easy to provide protected access on a site and you could give a password to anyone that asks you about it. This way you can still control distribution without restricting people that have difficulty (see for example Lafe) to get the files otherwise... Would that be accepted? I haven't thought much about it. The thing is : how many people, reaslistically, will want to look at the sources to do something about them? 50? (and I believe I'm optimistic, here!) Does this justify the entire rigamarole of setting up a website for this? I'm not sure. Do you think this would be justified? Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 16:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: okay, i've stayed out of this discussion for a while, although interesting, it seems that some of the points about SMSQ/E have been missed. Can someone please send me a copy of the licence for the release of SMSQ/E sources, so I can have a look at this. No, the licence hans't been done yet. wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 19:32, Dexter wrote: There are two ways to make money from SMSQ: 1. Be Tony Tebby. 2. ... To be quite frank, I resent that comment. the decision the pay TT some money was not his, but was an agreement we came to at Eindhoven. TT has put in an enormous amount of time and money into SMSQ/E, and HAS not gotten back as much as he should. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 at 09:34:31, wrote: (ref: 3CB16427.19667.AF2613@localhost) On 27 Mar 2002, at 19:32, Dexter wrote: There are two ways to make money from SMSQ: 1. Be Tony Tebby. 2. ... To be quite frank, I resent that comment. the decision the pay TT some money was not his, but was an agreement we came to at Eindhoven. TT has put in an enormous amount of time and money into SMSQ/E, and HAS not gotten back as much as he should. Indeed. If Tony had been getting what he should from SMSQ, then he would still be developing it. The whole reason it is OS is that he wasn't. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tonysurname,demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Wolfgang, Just a slight question - will the sources include the source for SDUMP - this needs updating to support more printers! 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] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 8 Apr 2002, at 5:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wolfgang, Just a slight question - will the sources include the source for SDUMP - this needs updating to support more printers! Simple reply : I don't know. I've never seen the sources until now, so I have NO IDEA what they look like, nor what is in them. Tony is slowly getting ready to assemble them and send them to me. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27 Mar 2002, at 19:32, Dexter wrote: There are two ways to make money from SMSQ: 1. Be Tony Tebby. 2. ... To be quite frank, I resent that comment. the decision the pay TT some money was not his, but was an agreement we came to at Eindhoven. TT has put in an enormous amount of time and money into SMSQ/E, and HAS not gotten back as much as he should. If you resent that comment, I didn't explain it properly. Yes, Tony will make a little money from SMSQ. I doubt the resellers will - they'll probably cover costs. I was trying to say that some of the money should stay with the people that are doing the work - the resellers. Sorry I caused offense. Case of too big a point expressed in too few words ?:o) Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 11:08:08PM +, Roy Wood wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes BIG SNIP I DO believe though that potential developers should be able to distribute their builds of SMSQ/E for free if they choose so. (Emphasis on free) because if they do charge something for it, the rights should be given to the copyright holder/manager. The reason that this was vetoed at the meeting was that the whole purpose of the registrar was to make sure that versions of the binaries would be compatible with most systems. For instance the inclusion of the COPYBACK_CACHE into SMSQ/E for the Q40/Q60 made it unable to run ProWesS with any degree of stability. Incidentally a version 2.98(patched) of SMSQ/E is being distributed with current versions of the Q40/Q60. this is a very nice example why you don't want to include such fixes into the official version without proper testing. The patch itself was a very simple bugfix, surely the way it was originally intended by TT but it has considerable effects: - MMU is enabled, apparently it was previously mostly disabled - full caching is configured. It is pretty obvious that this may break some software or even expose other bugs in SMSQ. ... has anyone had ProWesS running properly on this version and, if they have, why will it not run on my Q40 without a massive crash ? Wolfgang confirmed at Eindhoven that this will not work with his Q60 so what is the situation here? It is most likely not an SMSQ issue at all, most crashes are caused by some application problem. You can turn off the caches and see if it works. Bye Richard
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 1:44, Phoebus Dokos wrote: (hmmm civilised and Greek at the same sentence :-) Ok, say we'll admit that Greece is the cradle of modern civilisation... 2. There are (as Dave and me among others) some differences between what you originally said and your clarifications UNLESS I didn't understand you completely I have no problem with not being clear from time to time. That's why the need to clarify. 3. The details of distribution esp. to cover people with no other means of getting the software using IRCs instead of money (if they CANNOT get the IRCs in the first place), need to be cleared up a little bit. (..)- Please Wolfgang, find some better way to do this. I am willing to help in this aspect (as you can see from my other emails). I have had IRCs from people in the US... I suggested IRCs because that is a convenient way of paying for the postage. I will NEVER refuse to send the sources to somebody who genuinely can't send me IRCs. 4. Contradictions between the text you originally submitted and your clarifications must be eliminated :-) I agree. I just don't find that many :-). 5. ESPECIALLY for hardware designers, I think that a provision should be made so they will be able to distribute some form of binaries (especially in ROMS) to avoid the problems vividly illustrated in QL-Developers by Peter (You do read that list don't you?). No, I'm sorry, I don't. If I remember correctly, at the time that list was created, there was some talk of being vetted to be allowed in (I might have this wrong), so I never bothered. Could you ask Peter (or Claus) to copy their mesages to this list - or could you copy the relevant messages to this list? In any case we cannot argue that this isn't one of the most significant developments in the QL just shy of the announcement of Colour drivers! That we all agrre on. On second thought, that we (most of us) agree on... It's absolutely no problem voicing your opinions/concerns. - on the contrary - The only thing is that I won't be replying right now to each message. I prefer to have a bundle of questions/opinions that I can treat all at once AFTER THE EASTER WEEKEND (I'm taking a few days off and going to London). Please, let me have this respite... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 08:04 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: On 27 Mar 2002, at 1:44, Phoebus Dokos wrote: (hmmm civilised and Greek at the same sentence :-) Ok, say we'll admit that Greece is the cradle of modern civilisation... Ha! that was more than 2500 years ago... all we do now is party (and we're really good at it :-) 2. There are (as Dave and me among others) some differences between what you originally said and your clarifications UNLESS I didn't understand you completely I have no problem with not being clear from time to time. That's why the need to clarify. Okay... just look at the end of this email I have had IRCs from people in the US... I suggested IRCs because that is a convenient way of paying for the postage. I will NEVER refuse to send the sources to somebody who genuinely can't send me IRCs. Oh I understand that but it's useful to be clear from the get go to avoid ANY misunderstandings (and that's why having this conversation now, before the sources become available is very constructive :-) I agree. I just don't find that many :-). Hehe 5. ESPECIALLY for hardware designers, I think that a provision should be made so they will be able to distribute some form of binaries (especially in ROMS) to avoid the problems vividly illustrated in QL-Developers by Peter (You do read that list don't you?). No, I'm sorry, I don't. If I remember correctly, at the time that list was created, there was some talk of being vetted to be allowed in (I might have this wrong), so I never bothered. I don't remember that being the case ever... Ql-developers is always open for anyone to join... nonetheless I already forwarded you Peter's message... (It's along the lines of Dave's objections though, only a little less confusing ;-))) (Sorry Dave :-D) Could you ask Peter (or Claus) to copy their mesages to this list - or could you copy the relevant messages to this list? See above. In any case we cannot argue that this isn't one of the most significant developments in the QL just shy of the announcement of Colour drivers! That we all agrre on. On second thought, that we (most of us) agree on... It's absolutely no problem voicing your opinions/concerns. - on the contrary - The only thing is that I won't be replying right now to each message. I prefer to have a bundle of questions/opinions that I can treat all at once AFTER THE EASTER WEEKEND (I'm taking a few days off and going to London). Oh agreed :-) In any case it would be easier for you to get the median of all the dissenting opinions and either clarify the official route chosen or adjust the license :-)) Don't forget to have a good time in London :-) Okay below find the main points of the SMSQ/E sources license/distribution scheme as I understood it... Please do correct me (and others) if there are any mistakes :-) 1. The copyright for SMSQ/E is retained by Tony Tebby (Nothing weird here, just like Linux) 1. There are (currently) two official distributors of LICENSED binaries and ONLY official Distributors can SELL SMSQ/E. 2. The registrar (and only the registrar) is making available the SMSQ/E sources to anyone that wants them free of charge, provided that the person sends return postage in form of IRCs and Media for the sources to be put on. (See also No. 7 for the contradiction) 3. Any modifications CANNOT be publicised until approved by the registrar 4. Any modifications/new code that is approved and entered in the source loses it's copyright from its author and derives the overall copyright status of SMSQ/E. (In that aspect, modifications from 3rd parties on the modifications from the 2nd party does not need to include the writer's copyright message/license but only the SMSQ/E license) 5. ANYONE CAN create a distribution for his own use from the sources but cannot give it away to no one free of charge or otherwise 6. It is STRICTLY prohibited for anyone to make the sources available on the internet (unless given specific permission to do so by the registrar or the copyright holder) 7. It is NOT STRICTLY prohibited (but in any case requires prior approval) for a PD library/Shareware catalog/Individual to give away the SMSQ/E sources provided no fee is charged (same as no. 2) Okay that is it Please clarify If I got them right or wrong :-) If No. 7 is right and No. 2 is not, then I do volunteer to distribute the sources in the US, free of charge :-) as well Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 09:24:13AM -0500, Phoebus Dokos wrote: 1. The copyright for SMSQ/E is retained by Tony Tebby (Nothing weird here, just like Linux) 1. There are (currently) two official distributors of LICENSED binaries and ONLY official Distributors can SELL SMSQ/E. 2. The registrar (and only the registrar) is making available the SMSQ/E sources to anyone that wants them free of charge, provided that the person sends return postage in form of IRCs and Media for the sources to be put on. (See also No. 7 for the contradiction) 3. Any modifications CANNOT be publicised until approved by the registrar 4. Any modifications/new code that is approved and entered in the source loses it's copyright from its author and derives the overall copyright status of SMSQ/E. (In that aspect, modifications from 3rd parties on the modifications from the 2nd party does not need to include the writer's copyright message/license but only the SMSQ/E license) 5. ANYONE CAN create a distribution for his own use from the sources but cannot give it away to no one free of charge or otherwise 6. It is STRICTLY prohibited for anyone to make the sources available on the internet (unless given specific permission to do so by the registrar or the copyright holder) 7. It is NOT STRICTLY prohibited (but in any case requires prior approval) for a PD library/Shareware catalog/Individual to give away the SMSQ/E sources provided no fee is charged (same as no. 2) Okay that is it Please clarify If I got them right or wrong :-) where the hell did you get all this bullshit from, what are you smoking today? Bye Richard
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 09:33 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: snip where the hell did you get all this bullshit from, what are you smoking today? Bye Richard Richard I want to believe you didn't mean what I understood... however I am not going to answer. Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 10:01 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: At 09:33 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: snip where the hell did you get all this bullshit from, what are you smoking today? Bye Richard Richard I want to believe you didn't mean what I understood... however I am not going to answer. Phoebus You know what... forget it... on second thought I am really pd off now... so here goes First of all if you were paying ANY attention whatsoever you would read that these were the point as I (and only I) understood them... and for which I asked a confirmation or not and to where I was mistaken in their understanding... To this effect, you could politely say that I was wrong and explain why... Instead you chose to insult me... well FYI I don't allow my mother to speak to me like that let alone anybody else... at least not in public. You have a problem with what I believe? Take it up to me PERSONALLY... unless of course you want a swear war that I can guarantee you, you'll lose... We Greeks have more swear words than the total of European languages COMBINED... Do you want to try me? As to what I am smoking that's none of your damn business isn't it? Also if by your bull word you mean that I am an idiot, it maybe so, but I'll be damned if I let anybody say that to me. Now if you have any CONSTRUCTIVE points to make regarding MY understanding of the new SMSQ/E license, please do offer them, if you don't, just take a shovel and a bucket and go play in your sandbox in the corner. This concludes my rant... You happy now Richard? Phoebus
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Oh boy. It is little Jimmy's birthday party. All his little friends are there. Little Jimmy's dad instructs (with naive futility) the children to play nicely with the new toys [so adults can have a few beers in peace]. But (surprise surprise) the children are unable to play nicely. Instead they do nothing but squabble over who is in charge of the toys and what games to play. Eventually their squabbling becomes so noisy that little Jimmy's dad storms over and picks up all the new toys saying I told you to play nicely, now none of you can have the toys! Might be an idea to get the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides to take the toys away again. Just an idea. -Original Message- From: phoebus Sent: 27 March 2002 16:26 To: ql-users Cc: phoebus Subject: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms At 10:01 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: At 09:33 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: snip where the hell did you get all this bullshit from, what are you smoking today? Bye Richard Richard I want to believe you didn't mean what I understood... however I am not going to answer. Phoebus You know what... forget it... on second thought I am really pd off now... so here goes First of all if you were paying ANY attention whatsoever you would read that these were the point as I (and only I) understood them... and for which I asked a confirmation or not and to where I was mistaken in their understanding... To this effect, you could politely say that I was wrong and explain why... Instead you chose to insult me... well FYI I don't allow my mother to speak to me like that let alone anybody else... at least not in public. You have a problem with what I believe? Take it up to me PERSONALLY... unless of course you want a swear war that I can guarantee you, you'll lose... We Greeks have more swear words than the total of European languages COMBINED... Do you want to try me? As to what I am smoking that's none of your damn business isn't it? Also if by your bull word you mean that I am an idiot, it maybe so, but I'll be damned if I let anybody say that to me. Now if you have any CONSTRUCTIVE points to make regarding MY understanding of the new SMSQ/E license, please do offer them, if you don't, just take a shovel and a bucket and go play in your sandbox in the corner. This concludes my rant... You happy now Richard? Phoebus Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments.
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 11:56 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: Oh boy. It is little Jimmy's birthday party. All his little friends are there. Little Jimmy's dad instructs (with naive futility) the children to play nicely with the new toys [so adults can have a few beers in peace]. But (surprise surprise) the children are unable to play nicely. Instead they do nothing but squabble over who is in charge of the toys and what games to play. Eventually their squabbling becomes so noisy that little Jimmy's dad storms over and picks up all the new toys saying I told you to play nicely, now none of you can have the toys! Might be an idea to get the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides to take the toys away again. Just an idea. You know what Ian, maybe you're totally right on this... In any case I apologize to the list for the previous rant, but as you know EVERYONE has his limits. I'm going to just put this matter behind me now anyway... Phoebus
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
You know what Ian, maybe you're totally right on this... In any case I apologize to the list for the previous rant, but as you know EVERYONE has his limits. I'm going to just put this matter behind me now anyway... Phoebus Phoebus, I found your emails on this subject important and helpful. The subject is a bit boring but important to QL users so we can figure out where we are at. Richard must be having a bad day and I would not waste any more time on that. The arrangement that has been set up is not standard by any means and some of the details are unclear. TT is not Linus by a long shot and we get all information second or third hand. Still I agree with you that this is a very encouraging event. I appreciate all the effort being made to make it work. -- Bill
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 at 16:56:26, wrote: (ref: Hb5f1240e71f.1017248184.ln4p1327.ldn.swissbank.com@MHS) Oh boy. It is little Jimmy's birthday party. All his little friends are there. Little Jimmy's dad instructs (with naive futility) the children to play nicely with the new toys [so adults can have a few beers in peace]. But (surprise surprise) the children are unable to play nicely. Instead they do nothing but squabble over who is in charge of the toys and what games to play. Eventually their squabbling becomes so noisy that little Jimmy's dad storms over and picks up all the new toys saying I told you to play nicely, now none of you can have the toys! Might be an idea to get the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides to take the toys away again. Just an idea. (8-)# I think we all ought to go and read William Golding's 'Lord of the Flies' - very much on the same lines as Ian's comment. Calm down folks, please. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tonysurname,demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 4:56 PM Subject: RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms Oh boy. It is little Jimmy's birthday party. All his little friends are there. Little Jimmy's dad instructs (with naive futility) the children to play nicely with the new toys [so adults can have a few beers in peace]. But (surprise surprise) the children are unable to play nicely. Instead they do nothing but squabble over who is in charge of the toys and what games to play. Eventually their squabbling becomes so noisy that little Jimmy's dad storms over and picks up all the new toys saying I told you to play nicely, now none of you can have the toys! Might be an idea to get the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides to take the toys away again. Just an idea. and all the other children looking on decide they would rather be at some other party All the best - Bill ( a user -hopefully not a loser )
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: 1. The copyright for SMSQ/E is retained by Tony Tebby (Nothing weird here, just like Linux) 1. There are (currently) two official distributors of LICENSED binaries and ONLY official Distributors can SELL SMSQ/E. 2. The registrar (and only the registrar) is making available the SMSQ/E sources to anyone that wants them free of charge, provided that the person sends return postage in form of IRCs and Media for the sources to be put on. (See also No. 7 for the contradiction) 3. Any modifications CANNOT be publicised until approved by the registrar 4. Any modifications/new code that is approved and entered in the source loses it's copyright from its author and derives the overall copyright status of SMSQ/E. (In that aspect, modifications from 3rd parties on the modifications from the 2nd party does not need to include the writer's copyright message/license but only the SMSQ/E license) 5. ANYONE CAN create a distribution for his own use from the sources but cannot give it away to no one free of charge or otherwise 6. It is STRICTLY prohibited for anyone to make the sources available on the internet (unless given specific permission to do so by the registrar or the copyright holder) 7. It is NOT STRICTLY prohibited (but in any case requires prior approval) for a PD library/Shareware catalog/Individual to give away the SMSQ/E sources provided no fee is charged (same as no. 2) Let me make that a lot simpler... There are two ways to get SMSQ: 1. For free. Get the source, pay NOTHING, and compile it yourself. 2. Pay an official reseller for the executable. There are two ways to give SMSQ: 1. For free, accepting no payment, you may distribute the source. 2. Be an official reseller, accept payment, and pay the required license fee up the chain to TT. There are two ways to add code to SMSQ: 1. Submit them to the maintainer, who will examine them for compatibility and compliance and accept or reject them. 2. Distribute them as source only. There are two ways to make money from SMSQ: 1. Be Tony Tebby. 2. ... And as a final comment... Mr Tony Tebby, Hi, I'm a user. I first used QDOS in 1984, and I think it's great. I really appreciate that you would like to open up SMSQ to a wider programming audience and I like the way you're handling it, on the whole. However, the restriction on distributing executables, even for extremely limited testing purposes and the submission requirement being too all-encompassing, may be a little too broad and need some refinement. I do not wish to reduce the chance of this happening, and I realise SMSQ is your child, but it's a big world out there, and for any child to grow up it must be exposed to some risks. It's part of development (no pun intended!) So please, let us have a developer's license to encourage people to make SMSQ applicable to a wider audience and to really help it grow. It doesn't harm you, and it would certainly help you. In my humble opinion, Dave Your happy user.
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:08:08 + Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes BIG SNIP I DO believe though that potential developers should be able to distribute their builds of SMSQ/E for free if they choose so. (Emphasis on free) because if they do charge something for it, the rights should be given to the copyright holder/manager. The reason that this was vetoed at the meeting was that the whole purpose of the registrar was to make sure that versions of the binaries would be compatible with most systems. For instance the inclusion of the COPYBACK_CACHE into SMSQ/E for the Q40/Q60 made it unable to run ProWesS with any degree of stability. It is possible. DD Systems showed you that at the show. Switch off cache. Start ProWesS. Switch on cache. Voila! Secondly: The problem you describe here is not an OS problem, but an application program problem. Incidentally a version 2.98(patched) of SMSQ/E is being distributed with current versions of the Q40/Q60. I am sure that they have the legal right to sell this and are paying royalties to TT but has anyone had ProWesS running properly on this version and, if they have, why will it not run on my Q40 without a massive crash ? Wolfgang confirmed at Eindhoven that this will not work with his Q60 so what is the situation here? -- 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 license criticisms
Dexter wrote: So please, let us have a developer's license to encourage people to make SMSQ applicable to a wider audience and to really help it grow. It doesn't harm you, and it would certainly help you. - Tony does not read the list. - Tony did not do the licence. He said whatever sensible you'll come up with at Eindhoven is fine with me. Apart from that I have long ago lost the overview over the whole discussion and don't really have the time to catch up. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Dexter wrote: So please, let us have a developer's license to encourage people to make SMSQ applicable to a wider audience and to really help it grow. It doesn't harm you, and it would certainly help you. - Tony does not read the list. That seemed kinda obvious... - Tony did not do the licence. He said whatever sensible you'll come up with at Eindhoven is fine with me. That was not obvious. Now I know that, I am very disappointed. Apart from that I have long ago lost the overview over the whole discussion and don't really have the time to catch up. Let me summarise: Most people are grateful to TT for allowing this option. We've had the proposed license explained to us, and it's mostly Really Good. A couple of us are a bit put out, or rather, we would be put out, by the restrictions to the development cycle that the license puts on us. The problem is that there is no way to give someone an executable of SMSQ for testing (even if they're already a licensed user) unless and until that executable and source have been submitted to the maintainer, accepted into the main code tree, distributed to a reseller, and ordered commercially from that reseller. Every time you submit something, you have to buy it back. Not to mention that's before you can even do any testing with third parties. If you're doing something novel, no matter how limited or unrelated to the at-large userbase, if the maintainer doesn't accept it, you can't use it, unless you give your clients the source, and make them compile it themselves. That may not be what is intended, but that is what the license says. Completely ridiculous. Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
I don't know if everyone is ignoring me, but I made a few points about the SMSQ/E statement that can make all of the discussions going on a mute point. The statement says that no one can SELL SMSQ/E except for the distributers. It made no mention of any person giving a SMSQ/E binary to any other person (except for PD libraries). Now, we can leave the statement as is and freely pass around binaries, much to the consternation of TT and the registrar, or the statement can be fixed to either block or control personal distribution of the binaries. I understand the spirit of the statement, but the wording is very bad and it is the wording that the law will follow. If I tell my daughters they can't watch TV in the front room, I can't yell at them for watching TV in their room. I may have thought they can't watch TV at all but only said can't watch TV in the front room. There is a difference. Tim Swenson ___ Free Domain Name Registration with Web Hosting at Lanset Communications. 56k Dialup, Web Design, and Colocation at http://www.lanset.net
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Dexter wrote: - Tony did not do the licence. He said whatever sensible you'll come up with at Eindhoven is fine with me. That was not obvious. Now I know that, I am very disappointed. Why? Most people are grateful to TT for allowing this option. We've had the proposed license explained to us, and it's mostly Really Good. Fine. The problem is that there is no way to give someone an executable of SMSQ for testing (even if they're already a licensed user) unless and until that executable and source have been submitted to the maintainer, accepted into the main code tree, distributed to a reseller, and ordered commercially from that reseller. Every time you submit something, you have to buy it back. Not to mention that's before you can even do any testing with third parties. I did not write the licence but I'm one of the people who drafted the spirit of how it should be. And in my opinion giving away a modified version to somebody who already owns SMSQ/E is ok. At least for the versions Tony has the sole copyright for (all except QPC so far). In the future there might be other versions that incorporates copyrighted parts of other people (like an Aurora driver). Of course a modified version of that can't be given away to somebody who did not previously acquire the other copyrighted part. Or shorter: if the person who receives the modified binary legally owns the version the modification is based on it is ok. That may not be what is intended, but that is what the license says. If that's the case it should be changed. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
??? 27/3/2002 3:28:34 ìì, ?/? Timothy Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: I don't know if everyone is ignoring me, but I made a few points about the SMSQ/E statement that can make all of the discussions going on a mute point. I am certainly not... however there are some differences between what the original statement says and what Wolfgang clarified later and that was the whole point of me listing the key points as I understood them so I could be corrected if needed. The statement says that no one can SELL SMSQ/E except for the distributers. It made no mention of any person giving a SMSQ/E binary to any other person (except for PD libraries). Now, we can leave the statement as is and freely pass around binaries, much to the consternation of TT and the registrar, or the statement can be fixed to either block or control personal distribution of the binaries. I understand the spirit of the statement, but the wording is very bad and it is the wording that the law will follow. If I tell my daughters they can't watch TV in the front room, I can't yell at them for watching TV in their room. I may have thought they can't watch TV at all but only said can't watch TV in the front room. There is a difference. True... can't have your pie and eat it too :-) Tim Swenson ___ Free Domain Name Registration with Web Hosting at Lanset Communications. 56k Dialup, Web Design, and Colocation at http://www.lanset.net -- Phoebus R. Dokos - Quantum Leap Software Web and Graphic Design - Custom Program Solutions Tech Support - Software Localization Web: http://www.dokos-gr.net ICQ#:34196116 / SMS:+30973267887 SMS:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Timothy Swenson wrote: I don't know if everyone is ignoring me, No, not intentionally at least ;-) The statement says that no one can SELL SMSQ/E except for the distributers. It made no mention of any person giving a SMSQ/E binary to any other person (except for PD libraries). Yes, IIRC the intention was that nobody should earn something from the sources without Tony getting something out of it, too. My problem currently is that we did discuss so many possibilities at Eindhoven that I don't completely remember what we agreed on in the end... so I hope Wolfgang can clear up some matters when he comes back. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
It is possible. DD Systems showed you that at the show. Switch off cache. Start ProWesS. Switch on cache. Voila! This indicates another problem. In ProWesS during startup (and loading of each ProWesS program) the OS is called to switch caches off and back on when it is finished. So this indicates that there is a problem with that code! Joachim
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
4. Any modifications/new code that is approved and entered in the source loses it's copyright from its author and derives the overall copyright status of SMSQ/E. (In that aspect, modifications from 3rd parties on the modifications from the 2nd party does not need to include the writer's copyright message/license but only the SMSQ/E license) I personally would never be prepared to transfer copyright. I would accept not being able to get a fee for the work done, but copyright should always stay with the author of the relevant piece of code! In fact, if the code would later be sold (outside the QL community) I would not accept my code being part of that if I do not get a part of the fee! Joachim
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
okay, i've stayed out of this discussion for a while, although interesting, it seems that some of the points about SMSQ/E have been missed. Can someone please send me a copy of the licence for the release of SMSQ/E sources, so I can have a look at this. 1) Is the license actually definitive, or has it yet to be signed by Tony Tebby?? Surely an agreement to amend the licence can be reached if necessary... 2) Some additions/changes to SMSQ/E can be released as add-on modules - this would overcome any problems with distribution/copyright etc as the add-on modules could be released and sold separately by the authors. 3) The rules on copyright are actually fairly tight (at least here in the UK) - the copyright for any code produced remains with the original author, unless released into the public domain. Surely (although I have not seen the terms of the licence), if someone wanted to release a new version of SMSQ/E specifically for Aurora, for example, they could put their own limits upon distribution of the code which they have written, for example, the sources should not be made public, and the binaries should only be distributed provided a specified fee is paid to that author. After all, the license agreement can only relate to the existing SMSQ/E code, not any additions made to it later by Tony Tebby or anyone else. *** FINALLY A PLEA *** Can we please stop personal attacks and arguments on this list - we should all try to work together in producing an agreement on how SMSQ/E can be developed at a later date.. Rich Mellor RWAP Software 7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR TEL: 01977 614299
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh boy. It is little Jimmy's birthday party. All his little friends are there. Little Jimmy's dad instructs (with naive futility) the children to play nicely with the new toys [so adults can have a few beers in peace]. But (surprise surprise) the children are unable to play nicely. Instead they do nothing but squabble over who is in charge of the toys and what games to play. Eventually their squabbling becomes so noisy that little Jimmy's dad storms over and picks up all the new toys saying I told you to play nicely, now none of you can have the toys! Might be an idea to get the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides to take the toys away again. Just an idea. This sadly also looks very much like the world situation. One theological description is 'original sin'. Lafe -Original Message- From: phoebus Sent: 27 March 2002 16:26 To: ql-users Cc: phoebus Subject: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms At 10:01 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: At 09:33 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: snip where the hell did you get all this bullshit from, what are you smoking today? Bye Richard Richard I want to believe you didn't mean what I understood... however I am not going to answer. Phoebus You know what... forget it... on second thought I am really pd off now... so here goes First of all if you were paying ANY attention whatsoever you would read that these were the point as I (and only I) understood them... and for which I asked a confirmation or not and to where I was mistaken in their understanding... To this effect, you could politely say that I was wrong and explain why... Instead you chose to insult me... well FYI I don't allow my mother to speak to me like that let alone anybody else... at least not in public. You have a problem with what I believe? Take it up to me PERSONALLY... unless of course you want a swear war that I can guarantee you, you'll lose... We Greeks have more swear words than the total of European languages COMBINED... Do you want to try me? As to what I am smoking that's none of your damn business isn't it? Also if by your bull word you mean that I am an idiot, it maybe so, but I'll be damned if I let anybody say that to me. Now if you have any CONSTRUCTIVE points to make regarding MY understanding of the new SMSQ/E license, please do offer them, if you don't, just take a shovel and a bucket and go play in your sandbox in the corner. This concludes my rant... You happy now Richard? Phoebus Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments.
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Joachim Van der Auwera wrote: I personally would never be prepared to transfer copyright. I would accept not being able to get a fee for the work done, but copyright should always stay with the author of the relevant piece of code! In fact, if the code would later be sold (outside the QL community) I would not accept my code being part of that if I do not get a part of the fee! According to the Berne Convention, which regulates international copyright law, it's really simple... If you take someone else's work and modify it, the new work is a derivitive work, and the original author retains copyright. If you create something additional, which is not based on a prior work, you have copyright automatically, but you can surrender that copyright to the other of the larger work by accepting their license conditions. However, reality check, SMSQ is such a small seller that I doubt anyone would be able to justify suing even if there was a major infringement, or the lawyers would earn more than the entire income from SMSQ in even a very small lawsuit. Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Dexter wrote: That was not obvious. Now I know that, I am very disappointed. Why? Because I pictured it that TT had chosen a license structure and chosen three trusted people to execute it for him, Instead, he passed that role to someone he trusts, and that one person plus two resellers seem to have given themselves all the control... It's not fact - it's an impression. It's all about how it looks. I did not write the licence but I'm one of the people who drafted the spirit of how it should be. And in my opinion giving away a modified version to somebody who already owns SMSQ/E is ok. At least for the versions Tony has the sole copyright for (all except QPC so far). In the future there might be other versions that incorporates copyrighted parts of other people (like an Aurora driver). Of course a modified version of that can't be given away to somebody who did not previously acquire the other copyrighted part. Or shorter: if the person who receives the modified binary legally owns the version the modification is based on it is ok. That would completely remove my devil's advocate concerns. It's a very fair way of making sure the right license fees are paid by the right people at the right time. That may not be what is intended, but that is what the license says. If that's the case it should be changed. A minor rewrite of clarification or expansion would be nice. Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Dexter wrote: Because I pictured it that TT had chosen a license structure He certainly had some ideas and requirements which went into the draft, like the registrar stuff. But I haven't spoken with him personally. and chosen three trusted people to execute it for him, Instead, he passed that role to someone he trusts, and that one person plus two resellers seem to have given themselves all the control... I don't really get this sentence. But yes, he has passed the role to someone he trusts, i.e. Jochen. A minor rewrite of clarification or expansion would be nice. Let's wait for Wolfgang to return. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Let's wait for Wolfgang to return. Let me add that I am very heartened by Wolfgang's approach to these 'criticisms'. I'm trying to be as helpful and constructive as possible. If the intent is to enhance development, I would like to help remove restrictions that have a chilling effect on development. Wolfgang has listened to my comments and responded very positively. He is making a genuine effort to understand my concerns (which may or may not be shared with others, who may or may not have their own concerns too!) Frankly, this is one of the best critical discussions I've participated in - Wolfgang is showing the precise listening and diplomatic qualities I would be looking for in a maintainer/registrar. Good choice Mr Tebby :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Claus Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes SNIP It is possible. DD Systems showed you that at the show. Switch off cache. Start ProWesS. Switch on cache. Voila! Not. ProWesS will run true but printing fails randomly and LINEdesign will only print one page. After that, if you want to print two pages for instance you have to reset. Secondly: The problem you describe here is not an OS problem, but an application program problem. Joachim has stated that ProWesS will not run properly with the COPYBACK cache active. In version 2.99 of SMSQ/E for the Q 40 etc. I think you cannot turn off the cache. Either that or some other change is causing the same effect. I would like ProWesS to run with the cache turned on because it is much faster that way but I do need to have ProWesS running. For me this is the most important part of my system. -- 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 license criticisms
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes This approach is not illegal by any means and is exactly the same as that adopted by most major software houses for other platforms - M$ included. No-one can legally sell a copy of Windoze for instance unless they are a licensed M$ distributor and these distributors pass the goods on to the shops and other outlets. That's not true even if M$ wants you to think so... Dave is absolutely right when he says that this approach is ILLEGAL totally... however for the reasons I explained to my previous email it is not illegal in our case. To further explain: If you prohibit ANYONE to sell an original version of SMSQ/E then no one would be able to sell their second-hand software for example. I would have to come to you or Jochen give you my SMSQ/E that I didn't want any more for this or the other reason and then wait until you sold it!. As you can see this is not only illegal but impractical as well :-) But that is actually the case if you click the 'accept' box in Windoze. You are not legally entitled to sell your copy of Windoze 98 on to another user even if you have stopped using it yourself. It is all there in the small print that no-one reads but every one, including the pirates, agrees to. The whole point about this is that Jochen and I were not overly concerned about the money because it is a small amount. We were concerned about having to support code we know nothing about. If someone modifies a copy of SMSQ/E and distributes it who is to say they will change the version number. When that code breaks down somewhere unforeseen by the author of the changes we may have to deal with a customer whose programs are not working as they should and we have no way to tell if the code is the one we put out or a modified copy. It could all get very messy. This whole argument has been splitting hairs and blurring what is, in fact, a very simple attempt to give you more say in what direction SMSQ/E takes whilst maintaining a stable platform. We were not aware we would have a veto in any other person becoming a reseller and we would probably not take up that option anyway. All we want to do is to ensure that the end user has the most stable version of SMSQ/E with as many features and extras as we can crowbar in. Our community is very small so adding a distributor level to the process would be unnecessary. You can become a reseller if you wish. Just contact Wolfgang and he will speak with TT on your behalf. Maybe is a good idea because the US users would have a better contact. I am here and available for that :-) Fine. Be prepared, however, to adopt the role of 'bedtime story reader' because a small minority of users seem not to want to read the manual and are happier if you read it to them over the telephone. One called me the other day to ask how to create a second QXL.WIN file on QPC2. When I told him it was on page x of the manual he quite happily said that he had put the manual away, was not at home and wanted to do it right then. Oh well in that case. Are your sitting comfortably,? Then I'll begin Once upon a time .. Hey I have no problem with providing support on this but I don't see how many sales SMSQ/E would have in the US (apart from the few upgrades). That would be just a convenience service to the community rather than a business :-) My point entirely. That is what Q Branch is. I lose money on Q Branch but I do it because I enjoy using the system, I like the people and it gives Jochen and I an excuse to meet up for a meal in a foreign country. I have done this for eight years now and Jochen has done it for far longer. If either of us did this for money we would be long gone. -- 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 license criticisms
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Timothy Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes SNIP So, buy feel free to buy software and don't worry about your first born child. My first born child is training to be a lawyer ! -- 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 license criticisms
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Roy Wood wrote: But that is actually the case if you click the 'accept' box in Windoze. You are not legally entitled to sell your copy of Windoze 98 on to another user even if you have stopped using it yourself. It is all there In the US at least, that clause was deemed unlawful, because of the First Sale doctrine. A minor point, but one which is important if you're Microsoft. This whole argument has been splitting hairs and blurring what is, in fact, a very simple attempt to give you more say in what direction SMSQ/E takes whilst maintaining a stable platform. Splitting hairs is exactly what is required. I think it's better to constructively split hairs now, before the license is adopted, than have to split hairs later, after it is adopted and it's hard to impose amended conditions on existing users under the old license. My point entirely. That is what Q Branch is. I lose money on Q Branch but I do it because I enjoy using the system, I like the people and it gives Jochen and I an excuse to meet up for a meal in a foreign country. I have done this for eight years now and Jochen has done it for far longer. If either of us did this for money we would be long gone. This license must obviously protect you, but as resellers, your support role extends only to people who purchased directly from you. You're under no obligation to support users who bought from someone else. Though, knowing you Roy, you would probably give it your best shot anyway ;) Anyway, I expressed my concern, and people are now well aware of it. Either the license will change, and I can work with SMSQ, or it won't and I can't, and... (At this point, I wrote 5 paragraphs on this, but held off posting and reread and decided to delete them. It was rehashing what was already said, and therefore not constructive.) The biggest benefit of the source release will be, I suspect, not in OS development but in application and driver development, as people can look at the OS source and say Ahah! and improve their own projects. Anyway, it's not an exclusive license, so there's always room for a developer's license with more developer-friendly conditions. Probably with a different QDOSesque OS. The future will tell... Dave PS: I tire of my devil's advocate role in the search of the perfect license. I shall now retire to the shadows and see what changes, or doesn't. Hopefully, everything will continue to be this reasoned and constructive. :o)
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 16:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > okay, i've stayed out of this discussion for a while, although interesting, > it seems that some of the points about SMSQ/E have been missed. > > Can someone please send me a copy of the licence for the release of SMSQ/E > sources, so I can have a look at this. Just another small point: Remember: The "official statement" is just that. It is NOT yet the licence. The licence is yet to be drafted. I haven't even got the source code yet. Remember: point 6 said: Authors retain copyright over their additions/modifications, but when submitting their additions/modifications, they agree that, if they are accepted in any official distribution (under the statements as set out above), the may be included in all other furture distributions (in other words, you can't submit something, which is included, and then some months later attempt to withdraw it). Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 21:17, Dexter wrote: However, reality check, SMSQ is such a small seller that I doubt anyone would be able to justify suing even if there was a major infringement, or the lawyers would earn more than the entire income from SMSQ in even a very small lawsuit. Yes please... We also evoked that possibility at Eindhoven. But the situation wouldn't be any different from somebody selling bootleg copies of SMSQ/E now. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 20:59, Dexter wrote: Because I pictured it that TT had chosen a license structure and chosen three trusted people to execute it for him, Instead, he passed that role to someone he trusts, and that one person plus two resellers seem to have given themselves all the control... It's not fact - it's an impression. It's all about how it looks. And it's not too far from being true, with one or two privisos, though: 1 -Somebody has to have control - that somebody can be Tony Tebby, or anybody else. It so happens that I go the ball started, and I seem to have gotten stuck with it. Fair enough for me. But, neither I nor the 'two resellers' gave ourselves control. That was, and contiinues to be, given to us by Tony Tebby. (BTW: I sense something disparaging in the mention of two resellers. I would clearly like to state that they and, notably Jochen Merz (who has been at it for far longer) ahve supported the QL screnen for a very long time. I see nothing wrong with them getting some money. Believe me, it doesn't even cover their costs for things such as coming to Eindhoven. I believe that without their continued support, (but also that of people like Tony Firshman - or Peter Graf) the QL scene will wither and die. That does not mean that other people's support is not important either. ) 2 - EVERYTHING that will ultimately go into the licence will be submitted and approved by Tony. A minor rewrite of clarification or expansion would be nice. Don't worry, I'll come to that. I'll make the entire licence available here. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 22:33, Dexter wrote: Frankly, this is one of the best critical discussions I've participated in - Wolfgang is showing the precise listening and diplomatic qualities I would be looking for in a maintainer/registrar. Good choice Mr Tebby :o) Blush! The whole purpose of doing things as we are doing them now, is to listen to all of you. It's quite obvious from the different interventions, that we will not be able to please all of you, which is something I personally regret, but that's life. All I can say is that I read all of these mails very carefully (I even print them!), so that I can come up with something that is as close to the spirit (as Marcel rightly states) of what was discussed at Eindhoven (and later cleared by me with Tony Tebby) as possible. Ok, I'm off now... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 19:32, Dexter wrote: There are two ways to make money from SMSQ: 1. Be Tony Tebby. 2. ... And as a final comment... Mr Tony Tebby, Hi, just a small comment: 1- First of all, the decicion to pay Tony some money was NOT his. This was decided at Eindhoven. It is a decision I personally fully support. Tony DID NOT expect this payment, he even was a bit miffed when I told him about it. 2- Tony doesn't read this list (I think). Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
- Original Message - From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:05 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes snip No-one can legally sell a copy of Windoze for instance unless they are a licensed M$ distributor and these distributors pass the goods on to the shops and other outlets. That's not true even if M$ wants you to think so... Dave is absolutely right when he says that this approach is ILLEGAL totally... however for the reasons I explained to my previous email it is not illegal in our case. To further explain: If you prohibit ANYONE to sell an original version of SMSQ/E then no one would be able to sell their second-hand software for example. I would have to come to you or Jochen give you my SMSQ/E that I didn't want any more for this or the other reason and then wait until you sold it!. As you can see this is not only illegal but impractical as well :-) But that is actually the case if you click the 'accept' box in Windoze. You are not legally entitled to sell your copy of Windoze 98 on to another user even if you have stopped using it yourself. It is all there in the small print that no-one reads but every one, including the pirates, agrees to. But in English law, at least, there is something called an unfair term of contract, which, means that when you accept the conditions of a contact, you are not LEGALLY bound by any of them that are unreasonable or unfair. It is just as nonsensical as my buying a car from someone and not being allowed to drive it by the contract terms (or, indeed to sell it to someone else). If any legal system doesn't have such a an all-embracing overriding principle then I don't have much hope for it as a legal system. I bet if M$ ever tested this in an English court case they'd be shot down in seconds, now matter how many millions of dollars they was prepared to spend (but if I was the judge I'd make sure they had to spend them before they lost!!!) snip -- Peter S Tillier[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employer. Peter S Tillier[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
??? 28/3/2002 1:22:25 ðì, ?/? [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: On 27 Mar 2002, at 22:33, Dexter wrote: Frankly, this is one of the best critical discussions I've participated in - Wolfgang is showing the precise listening and diplomatic qualities I would be looking for in a maintainer/registrar. Good choice Mr Tebby :o) Seconded by me... :-) Blush! The whole purpose of doing things as we are doing them now, is to listen to all of you. It's quite obvious from the different interventions, that we will not be able to please all of you, which is something I personally regret, but that's life. The goal I think is not to please everyone (that's impossible anyway! :-) but to come to a sensible set of terms that will be fair to all concerned... developers, traders and simple users... I am very confident that Wolfgang will do this and even more The thing is that this is one of the best discussions in the list in a long time and a very complete at that as well... :-) All I can say is that I read all of these mails very carefully (I even print them!), so that I can come up with something that is as close to the spirit (as Marcel rightly states) of what was discussed at Eindhoven (and later cleared by me with Tony Tebby) as possible. Ok, I'm off now... Have a good time :-) Wolfgang -- Phoebus R. Dokos - Quantum Leap Software Web and Graphic Design - Custom Program Solutions Tech Support - Software Localization Web: http://www.dokos-gr.net ICQ#:34196116 / SMS:+30973267887 SMS:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Dexter makes some magical things to make me read } Hi all, } } I'm not saying anything here as personal opinion - I am playing devil's } advocate for the sake of creating a little controversy, which will } hopefully result in some discussion. At the moment there is too much } agreement. :o) Ok, let's see... It's just my point-of-view/feeling. } The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents } growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. } If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably } illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each } country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller. That's easily answered by specifying either that: - Reseller must be directly nominated by Tony Tebby. - a would-be-Reseller must get clearance from the college of actual Resellers. the procedure for the college of Reseller is up to them. In case of conflict, the coordinator or Tony Tebby get the final word. } } The decision to not allow any charging for sources is being rationalised } by you folks as a good thing (taxes, etc). It forces the sources to be } distributed by some free means only, ie the internet, and prevents it } being distributed by PB/shareware libraries unless they make special } arrangements. These arrangements more than double the length of time it } would take a recipient to get a copy of the sources. Outdated argument, might has been valid ten years ago. Moreover, personnaly speaking, as I'm still the QLCF librarian, French people could get free access to the sources from me the same way as they get access to the QLCF library (even more easily, because accessing the QLCF library required to be on the right list!). I would not have to make any change to my management for these sources. } } The decision to not allow distribution of binaries is very restrictive to } the point of being obstructive. I would propose the refinement to the } license, stating object code/binaries cannot be distributed to the general } public, and may only be shared at no cost for the purposes of beta } testing, or for producing custom versions for specific hardware. It would } otherwise restrict development and, combined with the clause mentioned } above, testing, of the code. The only way to force fancy developpers to share their code is to forbid the distribution of binary. This way, code related to new hardware is forced to go back to the coordinator for inclusion in the main code. It is also the only means to have the reseller doing their work. Otherwise, Just Imagine: I make a custom version for some hardware, based on version 3.01. I distributed it worldwide. Then official version move on up to 3.30 (with lot of nice enhancements), and either: - I get hassle by my customers to update and either: + I do it (and everybody is happy) + I try to do it but fail du to a major incompatibility in my old design, and customers get stucks. + I say 'f**k up', and customers get stucks. - I cleverly disappeared or loose my code: customers get stucks! Whereas, if the reseller are responsible of the binary distribution, I could have simply given to the coordinator the patched source code, and new improvements get available to my customer. The burden of the price is dealed by the reseller. What I'm not yet confortable with is the 'pay-me-option' for my source if it is not free and how to keep the main distribution of source. There must be some priviledged people (with the relevant hardware for test) which must be able to generate the binary and test it. But that's the problem of the coordinator. Your argument for beta-testing is void, because, for a beta, I want to have the source available. Thus you distribute the source, I compile, and get back to you with comment on behavior and code. Testing a black box is not a good testing for code! Dissiminating time-unlimited beta is not a good thing either! } } If only the official tree can be sold, how does a hardware manufacturer } who produces a custom version of SMSQ/E for XXX hardware include it in } ROM? He can offer to make payment of a license fee, but under this } license, it doesn't matter, it can't be distributed in binary form, or for } a fee. This removes any incentive for a developer to actually adapt SMSQ } to specific hardware, forcing us to stay with the hardware we already } have. He should provide its sources to the coordinator, Get the status of Reseller (see first point) or buy them the needed binary for the customer or just refers its customer to the Resellers. Just my opinion.
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Jerome Grimbert wrote: } The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents } growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. } If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably } illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each } country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller. That's easily answered by specifying either that: - Reseller must be directly nominated by Tony Tebby. Reseller Nominee forst has to get TT to acknowledge him and respond. - a would-be-Reseller must get clearance from the college of actual Resellers. the procedure for the college of Reseller is up to them. In case of conflict, the coordinator or Tony Tebby get the final word. This would clearly be illegal under anti-competitive legislation in the EU and US. SNIP - regarding no fees for distribution Outdated argument, might has been valid ten years ago. Moreover, personnaly speaking, as I'm still the QLCF librarian, French people could get free access to the sources from me the same way as they get access to the QLCF library (even more easily, because accessing the QLCF library required to be on the right list!). I would not have to make any change to my management for these sources. If I want to download the source, I could. If I don't have access, or have slow access, I have to send some IRCs (which I can't get here) and media, and wait, and they have to burn and return, and I have to wait. How silly. The only way to force fancy developpers to share their code is to forbid the distribution of binary. This way, code related to new hardware is forced to go back to the coordinator for inclusion in the main code. What happens when this is, as I said, custom hardware? The code would not be accepted into the master code tree. If the code is customized enough to not be relevant/applicable to the main code tree, you can not release your code except as sources. So, for argument's sake, I decide to make a new QL add-on which requires SMSQ, and it handles files or devices in a unique way, and my code submission is rejected as not relevant (which would be the right thing for the code maintainer to do) I can never burn that cod eon an EPROM and ship it - my customer has to compile the code and burn the EPROM themself. It is also the only means to have the reseller doing their work. Only if the code is relevant to the whole community and is accepted, or if the master sources quadruple in size, and are full of #includes for each branch *yuck* Your argument for beta-testing is void, because, for a beta, I want to have the source available. Thus you distribute the source, I compile, and get back to you with comment on behavior and code. Testing a black box is not a good testing for code! Dissiminating time-unlimited beta is not a good thing either! The kind of beta testing you describe is the minority of testing. Say I sell an XYZ to Fred, and he has a problem, and I suspect the bug may be ABC - I have to send him sources and get him to compile them. Now, Fred is a) not equipped with the software tools to do that, and b) doesn't know how. It makes helping your customers difficult. Homogenized SMSQ. One code tree fits all, and if you're outside that, the license forbids it, unless your customers are all knowledgeable programmers. No customer service for unique situations. No testing patches or updates for custom hardware. You're not allowed to help the people who most need the help. The future board I am working on will be flashable. But that feature is rendered redundant because my potential customer would be required to download/be sent sources, plus the tools to compile them, plus detailed instructions on how to use those tools. I can't just send them an image. That is such a major issue, as a developer, I would just use a different OS. He should provide its sources to the coordinator, Get the status of Reseller (see first point) or buy them the needed binary for the customer or just refers its customer to the Resellers. I like the idea of providing the sources to a reseller, but again, there are practical considerations. Hey, maintainer, here's versions for you. 0.1, 0.2, 0.2b, 0.3, 0.4, 0.4X (custom for Fred), 0.9, 0.99, 1.0, 1.0a Now, no developer will work in isolation. There will be, maybe, 5 people who would have hardware and be using/testing, and some will be capable of handling sources, and some wouldn't. Do the math. It's bulky, lots of excess work, and not relevant to the SMSQ code tree. Also, say I write something, which is new, but needs to be part of SMSQ, like, say, a complete new FS. I want to retain my (C) and collect fees or royalties. How do I do that? (No, this isn't happening, I have my devil's advocate hat on). Modifications to TT's work create a derivitive work to which he retains copyright,
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Your argument for beta-testing is void, because, for a beta, I want to have the source available. Thus you distribute the source, I compile, and get back to you with comment on behavior and code. Testing a black box is not a good testing for code! Dissiminating time-unlimited beta is not a good thing either! Er... beta testing IS black-box testing. Beta testing is done by end-users who volunteer to take an early release. And in the commercial world even alpha [in-house] testing is done mainly by teams of testers who normally have very limited access to the source code (and probably wouldn't understand it anyway). Only unit testing and early integration testing is [supposed to be :) ] done by developers. Admittedly, black-box testing often makes it harder for the developer to reproduce a reported bug, but at least the bugs are being found and (hopefully) reported. Testing also tends to be less 'structured' which means the testers will be trying many scenarios that the developer would not necessarily consider when testing against their source code. Black-box testing has been demonstrated to be a valid and worthwhile technique, but is not intended to be used exclusively. By the way, I've been following all the discussion on this topic, and am enthusiastic about the future of SMSQ/E as long as the project is well managed. I do however believe there is room for a limited amount of divergence of versions, to support different hardware platforms without having to stick to the Lowest Common Denominator approach, e.g. the FPU/No FPU situation. Ian. -Original Message- From: jerome.grimbert Sent: 26 March 2002 15:47 To: ql-users Cc: jerome.grimbert Subject: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms Dexter makes some magical things to make me read } Hi all, } } I'm not saying anything here as personal opinion - I am playing devil's } advocate for the sake of creating a little controversy, which will } hopefully result in some discussion. At the moment there is too much } agreement. :o) Ok, let's see... It's just my point-of-view/feeling. } The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents } growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. } If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably } illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each } country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller. That's easily answered by specifying either that: - Reseller must be directly nominated by Tony Tebby. - a would-be-Reseller must get clearance from the college of actual Resellers. the procedure for the college of Reseller is up to them. In case of conflict, the coordinator or Tony Tebby get the final word. } } The decision to not allow any charging for sources is being rationalised } by you folks as a good thing (taxes, etc). It forces the sources to be } distributed by some free means only, ie the internet, and prevents it } being distributed by PB/shareware libraries unless they make special } arrangements. These arrangements more than double the length of time it } would take a recipient to get a copy of the sources. Outdated argument, might has been valid ten years ago. Moreover, personnaly speaking, as I'm still the QLCF librarian, French people could get free access to the sources from me the same way as they get access to the QLCF library (even more easily, because accessing the QLCF library required to be on the right list!). I would not have to make any change to my management for these sources. } } The decision to not allow distribution of binaries is very restrictive to } the point of being obstructive. I would propose the refinement to the } license, stating object code/binaries cannot be distributed to the general } public, and may only be shared at no cost for the purposes of beta } testing, or for producing custom versions for specific hardware. It would } otherwise restrict development and, combined with the clause mentioned } above, testing, of the code. The only way to force fancy developpers to share their code is to forbid the distribution of binary. This way, code related to new hardware is forced to go back to the coordinator for inclusion in the main code. It is also the only means to have the reseller doing their work. Otherwise, Just Imagine: I make a custom version for some hardware, based on version 3.01. I distributed it worldwide. Then official version move on up to 3.30 (with lot of nice enhancements), and either: - I get hassle by my customers to update and either: + I do it (and everybody is happy) + I try to do it but fail du to a major incompatibility in my old design, and customers get stucks. + I say 'f**k up', and customers get stucks. - I cleverly disappeared or loose my
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 09:46 ðì 26/3/2002, you wrote: Hi all, I'm not saying anything here as personal opinion - I am playing devil's advocate for the sake of creating a little controversy, which will hopefully result in some discussion. At the moment there is too much agreement. :o) Ok... Deep breath... The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller. It is not flawed for a simple reason. For all terms and specifications, TT gave ALL rights to distribution to Jochen Merz (Which is LEGAL) so in this aspect the source of SMSQ/E (not source as program source but as point of origin) is NOT Tony Tebby but Jochen Merz. What is ILLEGAL is for him to hog the market which he doesn't do anyway In a recent discussion I had with him he had no objection of giving me SMSQ/E to sell in the US. The fact that the deal didn't go through has nothing to do with him, but with me having not enough time to pursue it. I am sure that if Tony Firshman wanted to sell SMSQ/E as well Jochen wouldn't have an objection either. The problem with the SMSQ/E market is that there aren't enough traders around the world, and even not enough users. No trader in his right mind would ask ANYBODY to sell ANYTHING if the potential buyers were 0 :-). So you see, there's nothing ILLEGAL per se with SMSQ/E being sold currently by Q-Branch and JMS only... it's just a matter of situation and not restrictions :-) The decision to not allow any charging for sources is being rationalised by you folks as a good thing (taxes, etc). It forces the sources to be distributed by some free means only, ie the internet, and prevents it being distributed by PB/shareware libraries unless they make special arrangements. These arrangements more than double the length of time it would take a recipient to get a copy of the sources. The decision to not allow distribution of binaries is very restrictive to the point of being obstructive. I would propose the refinement to the license, stating object code/binaries cannot be distributed to the general public, and may only be shared at no cost for the purposes of beta testing, or for producing custom versions for specific hardware. It would otherwise restrict development and, combined with the clause mentioned above, testing, of the code. If only the official tree can be sold, how does a hardware manufacturer who produces a custom version of SMSQ/E for XXX hardware include it in ROM? He can offer to make payment of a license fee, but under this license, it doesn't matter, it can't be distributed in binary form, or for a fee. This removes any incentive for a developer to actually adapt SMSQ to specific hardware, forcing us to stay with the hardware we already have. I understand your points but the situation with SMSQ/E is in a bit of dire straits right now... Let me explain why I think the solution given is the right one. (and also why I think that you are right about refining the license) 1. Traders MUST be able to keep their (already small) sales with no repercussions. In that aspect imposing selling restrictions makes sure that they will get exactly as much as they were getting before (See also above my comments for selling SMSQ/E) 2. Potential PD libraries are prohibited from SELLING unofficial binaries under the pretense of Copying fees, mailing etc... It's really easy to add an all-purpose handling fee which would essentially be a fee that wouldn't be returned to the copyright owner. This is essential for a community as small as ours. PD libraries could still provide hosting space for those who would want to download the sources which would be free anyway. 3. Indeed IRC's are not available even at the place I am but we could provide some method of doing it by appointing some distributor of the sources in the US. (I do volunteer btw). This way, someone could just send me the stamps and that would be essentially the same as the IRCs :-) (By no means though this means that this is a perfect solution... but hey we live in an imperfect world). 4. Developers really MUST be able to distribute enhanced versions of SMSQ/E with potential hardware. This is not a constraint right now, cause really there's no REAL hardware in development but could change in the future. I think that the best solution for that would be to have a beta test status on the binaries. This way the developer could freely distribute the hardware/software combination and when the change would be approved, that would change the software to legal-approved status and the developer could either charge extra or (by prior agreement with the official distributor pre-charge for it and when it's approved just pay the fees it should).
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 14:46, Dexter wrote: Hi all, I'm not saying anything here as personal opinion - I am playing devil's advocate for the sake of creating a little controversy, which will hopefully result in some discussion. At the moment there is too much agreement. :o) I knew it was too good to last... The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller. I **personnally** don't have anything against this. I do take this as a rather moot point, though, since Roy Jochen were the only people selling it now, really... Anybody who wants to be an official reseller can always contact me (which will be easier than contacting Tony Tebby). I'll then contact the other resellers and Tony Tebby. The decision to not allow any charging for sources is being rationalised by you folks as a good thing (taxes, etc). It forces the sources to be distributed by some free means only, ie the internet, and prevents it being distributed by PB/shareware libraries unless they make special arrangements. These arrangements more than double the length of time it would take a recipient to get a copy of the sources. No, the internet will not be accepted. Actually, it's just a way of protecting the people selling it (oh boy, will I get flamed now). It is also a way of making sure that those who do not wish to publish their source code can have it distributed anyway. YTou can always get the sources from me (unless you request one every day). To be quite frank, I don't think that it'll cost me more than something like 50 blank CDs - I can't believe that SO many people will be interested in the sources. The decision to not allow distribution of binaries is very restrictive to the point of being obstructive. See above. Also, I admit that this is a way to FORCE developers to gothrough me to have the binaries distributed. I can foresee that some will resent this pressure, and perhaps not develop anything. Just consider, that we're not doing this just in order to be unreasonable, but to try to get this thing on a coordinated road. The resellers have a duty to support their customers. For me, the situation is pretty simple: - either you are able to compile the code for your machine from the sources - then you don't need the resellers, you can adopt any change. - or you can't recompile this - then you should get your binaries from the resellers, who can handle your queries. I would propose the refinement to the license, stating object code/binaries cannot be distributed to the general public, and may only be shared at no cost for the purposes of beta testing, or for producing custom versions for specific hardware. It would otherwise restrict development and, combined with the clause mentioned above, testing, of the code. On the other hand, those testing the code, are most likely to be involved in the code writing, too... If only the official tree can be sold, how does a hardware manufacturer who produces a custom version of SMSQ/E for XXX hardware include it in ROM? He can offer to make payment of a license fee, but under this license, it doesn't matter, it can't be distributed in binary form, or for a fee. This removes any incentive for a developer to actually adapt SMSQ to specific hardware, forcing us to stay with the hardware we already have. This is a valid point I presume that this mainly concerns the Q60/Q40. Unless I'm mistaken, Peter Graf bought a SMSQ/E licence from Tony. There is no reason this couldn't be handled via the resellers, then... I hope the four points above are lucid and explain the difficulties they cause. I hope the replies do something to dispell your fears. Looking for some more lively discussion. Sure. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 16:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Er... beta testing IS black-box testing. Beta testing is done by end-users who volunteer to take an early release. And in the commercial world even alpha [in-house] testing is done mainly by teams of testers who normally have very limited access to the source code (and probably wouldn't understand it anyway). Only unit testing and early integration testing is [supposed to be :) ] done by developers. It is true that in today's commercial world, beta testing is done by the end user. IT SHOULDN'T BE I'll certainly attempt to beta test anything submitted to ,as far as my time (and the limited number of machines I have) permit. By the way, I've been following all the discussion on this topic, and am enthusiastic about the future of SMSQ/E as long as the project is well managed. I do however believe there is room for a limited amount of divergence of versions, to support different hardware platforms without having to stick to the Lowest Common Denominator approach, e.g. the FPU/No FPU situation. This is a very reasonable viewpoint. I'm not sure that it is shared by those who have the machine that DOESN'T support a feature. When/if an idea (or even CODE!!) for a new feature is submitted to me, I'll alwaaays try to check with the key developers if such a feature is possible on the other machines.! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: It is true that in today's commercial world, beta testing is done by the end user. IT SHOULDN'T BE I'll certainly attempt to beta test anything submitted to ,as far as my time (and the limited number of machines I have) permit. No offense, Wolfgang, but you don't seem to appreciate the gravity of your statement. Also, I'm not implying end users should be beta testers, just that beta testers shouldn't be required to be programmers too. Remember, the market for SMSQ is now so small, really, everything is beta. ICQ has more beta testers than SMSQ has users! By the way, I've been following all the discussion on this topic, and am enthusiastic about the future of SMSQ/E as long as the project is well managed. I do however believe there is room for a limited amount of divergence of versions, to support different hardware platforms without having to stick to the Lowest Common Denominator approach, e.g. the FPU/No FPU situation. This is a very reasonable viewpoint. I'm not sure that it is shared by those who have the machine that DOESN'T support a feature. When/if an idea (or even CODE!!) for a new feature is submitted to me, I'll alwaaays try to check with the key developers if such a feature is possible on the other machines.! There are two kinds of features involved. Both need to be handled differently. Soft features, which provide a functionality, API or interface for an application to use ina consistent manner, are very much the business of the maintainer and at the heart of what he is doing - it is through keeping these consistent that he ensures compatibility. Hard features, which may require changes to the OS to make different hardware look alike to the OS and applications, are much harder for the maintainer to handle. He a) has to have a sample of the hardware, and b) has to have an in-depth knowledge of what changes were necessary to make it happen. Think of the implications. Does the maintainer buy the hardware, or is the developer required to give/loan a prototype to them? *shudders* I don't think I'm going to devil's advocate that particular quandry any more - it's just getting too frightening persuing the ramifications... Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 01:01 ìì 26/3/2002, you wrote: On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: big snip of Dave's comments In light of Dave's clarifications I must totally agree with him. The more complicated the arrangement gets the less likely to develop ANYTHING. IMHO the whole point of making SMSQ/E public is to open it up for further development AND attract new users. Now because of the peculiar condition of the QL world, it is implied (and I believe that everyone agrees) that there will be a non-written gentlemen's agreement on how we are going to proceed with development. Furthermore, I think that we tend to forget that in most real world Open Source situations, money can and will still be made via other means (ie Manual, support etc.). I think that the best arrangement would be the following: 1. Sources should be available to everyone via any means (I do not disagree with the NO FEE, NOT EVEN COPYING one for the sources for the reasons I explained in my previous email) 2. Official binaries are available from official distributors 3. UNOFFICIAL binaries SHOULD be able to be distributed for free. If these are to be sold, a (predetermined) fee should be paid to the registrar/copyright owner etc.. 4. If an unofficial source gets approved for inclusion to the source tree, then it should be distributed from the official distributor (or the coder if a part of his fee -if any- goes to the official distributor) 5. The whole multiple dams/fortifications in the road to getting a test binary shouldn't exists. Imagine this potential situation. I write a driver for say a usb adapter for the Q60 (can't be done but anyway)... Then I send my source to say John Q. Ler to see for himself how nice it is Now say John Q. Ler is either not proficient in assembly or he doesn't have the assembler I used or he just won't use an assembler for more than that one time. They way I understood it, I am supposed first to submit the code back to the registrar, then the registrar back to John who will build a version for himself to test and use... or by buying the official distro. from the distributor. Instead of doing all this... why shouldn't I be able to give my test binary directly to John so he can see if he likes it (as he would if he were getting the sources from you) and save him (and everyone) the trouble of doing the same thing twice? So you see, indeed fine tuning is needed. I have NOTHING against the usual traders NOT losing their income (On the contrary I encourage that solution, since it's the best for everyone) but certainly the details must be ironed out. Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 01:28 ìì 26/3/2002, you wrote: At 01:01 ìì 26/3/2002, you wrote: On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: big snip of Dave's comments In light of Dave's clarifications I must totally agree with him. The more complicated the arrangement gets the less likely to develop ANYTHING. That should read Wolfgang's clarifications and not Dave's :-) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: In light of Dave's clarifications I must totally agree with him. Wahey! That should read Wolfgang's clarifications and not Dave's :-) Oh. Booo! Funny thing is, I can see many sides to the debate, and when I read your email saying you agreed with me, it seemed you did. Now you corrected yourself to say you agree with wolfgang, I reread it and it still seems you agree with me. :o) Please reread yourself, Phoebus, and separate the *intent* (where Wolfganga nd I are in 100% agreement) and the implementation (where we're not, and you recommend changes also) May I propose the following... That there be two licenses: A reseller/user license, which allows for profit distribution of sources and executables by resellers, and not-for-profit distribution of sources. A developer license, which allows not-for-profit distribution of sources and executables by developers, with the following limitations: Executables may only be distributed directly to known parties, who are forbidden from redistribution. Executables must be marked BETA on the startup screen, with a statement of who produced the executable and when. They may not be distributed to more then 10 users, or 1% of the user base, whichever is greater (which allows reasonable beta testing). They must be uniquely identifiable. Where a beta executable is distributed, the recipient name and contact details, and the unique identifier in the executable, must be forwarded to the code maintainer. Where the system has a RTC, the executables must not exceed 30 days useful life. Where no RTC is available, the beta tester must accept a 30 day limitation on use for that particular version. If the developer later needs to include the executable with a hardware product, he may obtain permission directly from the maintainer, and when given, seek bids from any authorised resellers for fees for the number of copies intended to be manufactured (bearing in mind the developer is making the copies and all the reseller is doing is extending a license for X number of copies at no cost to themselves) so appropriate license fees flow back up the tree to TT. The maintainer could grant or deny permission based on compatibility, but would not unreasonably deny permission where there are variances, if the product is designed for a very specific use that would not affect other users (eg embedded, control, etc) and/or the change is a superset of existing functionality that is clearly stated not to be standard. If a user already has a licensed copy of SMSQ, a developer should be entitled to include the modified or updated version at no cost to the user. This should be true for same version groups only - eg an upgrade from 2.X to 3.X would be chargeable but from 2.2 to 2.3 would not. Thoughts? Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 01:56 ìì 26/3/2002, you wrote: On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: In light of Dave's clarifications I must totally agree with him. Wahey! That should read Wolfgang's clarifications and not Dave's :-) Oh. Booo! F That's what happens when you are an idiot LIKE ME :-) All right! The CORRECT sentence... In light of Wolfgang's clarifications, I must totally agree with DAVE! There :-)
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes BIG SNIP I DO believe though that potential developers should be able to distribute their builds of SMSQ/E for free if they choose so. (Emphasis on free) because if they do charge something for it, the rights should be given to the copyright holder/manager. The reason that this was vetoed at the meeting was that the whole purpose of the registrar was to make sure that versions of the binaries would be compatible with most systems. For instance the inclusion of the COPYBACK_CACHE into SMSQ/E for the Q40/Q60 made it unable to run ProWesS with any degree of stability. Incidentally a version 2.98(patched) of SMSQ/E is being distributed with current versions of the Q40/Q60. I am sure that they have the legal right to sell this and are paying royalties to TT but has anyone had ProWesS running properly on this version and, if they have, why will it not run on my Q40 without a massive crash ? Wolfgang confirmed at Eindhoven that this will not work with his Q60 so what is the situation here? -- 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 license criticisms
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dexter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Please understand me, I am not personally averse to this arrangement, but it is very awkward and not transparent, and is also potentially illegal. Now, I trust completely the two current resellers, but people may ask questions, and they're entitled to do so. Speaking as one of the resellers I would like to say that I was not really bothered either way about whether the compiled code was sold or not until we discussed it at Eindhoven. Jochen and I have made very little from selling SMSQ/E over the last few years. The bulk of the price went to Tony Tebby and into the cost of manufacturing the manuals and distributing the goods. During the discussion at Eindhoven we decided to continue to send a reduced levy to Tony Tebby, whose return for a lot of work has always been less than he deserved, and we decided on the 'licensed reseller' approach as a way of paying us for the support that we offer. This approach is not illegal by any means and is exactly the same as that adopted by most major software houses for other platforms - M$ included. No-one can legally sell a copy of Windoze for instance unless they are a licensed M$ distributor and these distributors pass the goods on to the shops and other outlets. Our community is very small so adding a distributor level to the process would be unnecessary. You can become a reseller if you wish. Just contact Wolfgang and he will speak with TT on your behalf. Maybe this is a good idea because the US users would have a better contact. Be prepared, however, to adopt the role of 'bedtime story reader' because a small minority of users seem not to want to read the manual and are happier if you read it to them over the telephone. One called me the other day to ask how to create a second QXL.WIN file on QPC2. When I told him it was on page x of the manual he quite happily said that he had put the manual away, was not at home and wanted to do it right then. Oh well in that case. Are your sitting comfortably,? Then I'll begin Once upon a time .. -- 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 license criticisms
At 05:58 ìì 26/3/2002, you wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dexter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Please understand me, I am not personally averse to this arrangement, but it is very awkward and not transparent, and is also potentially illegal. Now, I trust completely the two current resellers, but people may ask questions, and they're entitled to do so. Speaking as one of the resellers I would like to say that I was not really bothered either way about whether the compiled code was sold or not until we discussed it at Eindhoven. Jochen and I have made very little from selling SMSQ/E over the last few years. The bulk of the price went to Tony Tebby and into the cost of manufacturing the manuals and distributing the goods. During the discussion at Eindhoven we decided to continue to send a reduced levy to Tony Tebby, whose return for a lot of work has always been less than he deserved, and we decided on the 'licensed reseller' approach as a way of paying us for the support that we offer. This approach is not illegal by any means and is exactly the same as that adopted by most major software houses for other platforms - M$ included. No-one can legally sell a copy of Windoze for instance unless they are a licensed M$ distributor and these distributors pass the goods on to the shops and other outlets. That's not true even if M$ wants you to think so... Dave is absolutely right when he says that this approach is ILLEGAL totally... however for the reasons I explained to my previous email it is not illegal in our case. To further explain: If you prohibit ANYONE to sell an original version of SMSQ/E then no one would be able to sell their second-hand software for example. I would have to come to you or Jochen give you my SMSQ/E that I didn't want any more for this or the other reason and then wait until you sold it!. As you can see this is not only illegal but impractical as well :-) Our community is very small so adding a distributor level to the process would be unnecessary. You can become a reseller if you wish. Just contact Wolfgang and he will speak with TT on your behalf. Maybe this is a good idea because the US users would have a better contact. I am here and available for that :-) Be prepared, however, to adopt the role of 'bedtime story reader' because a small minority of users seem not to want to read the manual and are happier if you read it to them over the telephone. One called me the other day to ask how to create a second QXL.WIN file on QPC2. When I told him it was on page x of the manual he quite happily said that he had put the manual away, was not at home and wanted to do it right then. Oh well in that case. Are your sitting comfortably,? Then I'll begin Once upon a time .. Hey I have no problem with providing support on this but I don't see how many sales SMSQ/E would have in the US (apart from the few upgrades). That would be just a convenience service to the community rather than a business :-) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Roy Wood wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dexter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Please understand me, I am not personally averse to this arrangement, but it is very awkward and not transparent, and is also potentially illegal. Now, I trust completely the two current resellers, but people may ask questions, and they're entitled to do so. snip for a lot of work has always been less than he deserved, and we decided on the 'licensed reseller' approach as a way of paying us for the support that we offer. The element isn't the licensing of resellers, it's that the current resellers get a say in who becomes a reseller in future. That is anti-competitive in possibility, if not in actions. As I said, I don't think for one second that you or Jochen would block a competitor, but that the arrangement itself exists is anticompetitive and does leave you open. Though I doubt anybody would sue over 20 copies of SMSQ ;) That would be kin to, say, Dell and Compaq having the power to veto Gateway from selling Windows. I hope my clarification helps. Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Wolfgang (and list), Because I have the distinct feeling that I am going to be misunderstood (once more... :-), let me also clarify some things. 1. As we in Greece (and in the US as well ;-) say, if you are given a horse, you don't look it at its teeth... by that I mean that opening up the SMSQ/E sources is a great development in itself and I welcome it with great pleasure, but I also would like to dissent in a civilised manner (hmmm civilised and Greek at the same sentence :-) 2. There are (as Dave and me among others) some differences between what you originally said and your clarifications UNLESS I didn't understand you completely 3. The details of distribution esp. to cover people with no other means of getting the software using IRCs instead of money (if they CANNOT get the IRCs in the first place), need to be cleared up a little bit. Open means open and not quasi-open (Open to people ABLE to get it in the method described but not to people lacking that ability - This is discriminatory in a way and I am absolutely against ANYTHING discriminatory...). In this sense we are creating two categories of QLers, the ones that can get SMSQ/E's sources and the ones that aren't allowed because they have no means to do it... - Please Wolfgang, find some better way to do this. I am willing to help in this aspect (as you can see from my other emails). 4. Contradictions between the text you originally submitted and your clarifications must be eliminated :-) 5. ESPECIALLY for hardware designers, I think that a provision should be made so they will be able to distribute some form of binaries (especially in ROMS) to avoid the problems vividly illustrated in QL-Developers by Peter (You do read that list don't you?). Unless of course again I didn't understand something right. In any case we cannot argue that this isn't one of the most significant developments in the QL just shy of the announcement of Colour drivers! That's all... and I hope I am clearer now :-) Phoebus
