Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 11:41:44PM +0100, Tony Firshman wrote: On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 at 11:52:28, Richard Zidlicky wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:03:03AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Zidlicky[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes SNIP Absolutely not. If you are building hardware you can't simply provide the user with an official SMSQ version in EPROM and a patch on a floppy disk and expect him to apply the patch to the EPROM. No need. All versions of SMSQ/E for the Qxx (which is what we are talking about here - possibly the GoldFire later but that will have flash ROM) are LRESPR'able over the source code on the ROM. That is what I do because I have an early version of the ROM. it will break when harddisks are accessed in LBA instead of CHS mode. That is interesting. I thought Tony Tebby had always intended that the SMSQ code could be LRESPRed. you can allways lrespr it from floppy. Keeping HD full backwards compatible with current versions of SMSQ would be probably a lot more work, as far as I could judge this is one of the rather messy aspects of SMSQ. I think most people would like to convert to LBA because that allows - disks 8GB (once a few other bugs are ironed out) - safe HD image exchange with QXL/QPC I suspect the majority of users are now running with LRESPRed SMSQ. Besides, what is the point to require the user to go through additional hoops like this? The speed argument mentioned later in this discussion is tripple nonsense and the authors of it should know better. You need to explain the 'triple' nonsense. - the code is in fast ROM and can be copied from there to RAM much faster than from a HD to RAM, iirc SMSQ already does this. - lrespr SMSQ involves a repeated HW initialisation, count another few seconds on that - it is much easier to screw up your HD than your ROM Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Richard Zidlicky writes: it will break when harddisks are accessed in LBA instead of CHS mode. That is interesting. I thought Tony Tebby had always intended that the SMSQ code could be LRESPRed. you can allways lrespr it from floppy. Keeping HD full backwards compatible with current versions of SMSQ would be probably a lot more work, as far as I could judge this is one of the rather messy aspects of SMSQ. I think most people would like to convert to LBA because that allows - disks 8GB (once a few other bugs are ironed out) - safe HD image exchange with QXL/QPC Changing from CHS to LBA is an extreme example and that sort of issue is only likely to crop up once in a blue moon. I suspect the majority of users are now running with LRESPRed SMSQ. Besides, what is the point to require the user to go through additional hoops like this? The speed argument mentioned later in this discussion is tripple nonsense and the authors of it should know better. You need to explain the 'triple' nonsense. - the code is in fast ROM and can be copied from there to RAM much faster than from a HD to RAM, iirc SMSQ already does this. - lrespr SMSQ involves a repeated HW initialisation, count another few seconds on that - it is much easier to screw up your HD than your ROM 1) The difference is maybe a second or two on a Q60 2) The bootloader could perhaps be upgraded to do this more intelligently 3) That will always be the case. At least, with a spare copy of the OS on a floppy youre not irretrievably sunk. In a situation where the OS is frequently being updated/upgraded (as we hope will be the case in the near future ;) it doesnt make sense to have the OS in ROM at all. The ROM need only contain a bootstrap. That way SMSQ would only ever need to be initialised once - namely from the most recent version on the hard disk. (A useful purpose for a ROM bootloader might be to search for available OSes on the hard disk and offer a simple menu for selecting which one to boot.) Per
RE: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
And, I believe that this was the sort oif thing that Dave (Dexter) was after in a recent post. Set up SMSQ so that the bootstrapping process looked for and offered various OS versions to be loaded. I'll second that. Regards, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: P Witte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 11:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE SNIP (A useful purpose for a ROM bootloader might be to search for available OSes on the hard disk and offer a simple menu for selecting which one to boot.) Per This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 at 09:21:32, Bill Waugh wrote: (ref: 003201c21a8f$027d3240$eaf47ad5@famwaugh) - Original Message - Now not (8-)# From: Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 11:41 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE Lets forget the speed thing, the litle extra time to Lrespr the code from hd is nowt compared to the boot up time of my PC. I am not talking about boot speed but running speed - that is certainly worth the extra boot time. Mind you this is more relevant to earlier systems I think, although LREPRed O/S is still faster on today's systems - marginally (I believe). -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname.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] This is the LICENCE
Tony Firshman wrote: I am not talking about boot speed but running speed - that is certainly worth the extra boot time. The first thing all versions of SMSQ/E do is copying themselves to some RAM location anyway. I.e. there is no waste of memory when loading SMSQ/E from disc. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:03:03AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Zidlicky[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes SNIP Absolutely not. If you are building hardware you can't simply provide the user with an official SMSQ version in EPROM and a patch on a floppy disk and expect him to apply the patch to the EPROM. No need. All versions of SMSQ/E for the Qxx (which is what we are talking about here - possibly the GoldFire later but that will have flash ROM) are LRESPR'able over the source code on the ROM. That is what I do because I have an early version of the ROM. it will break when harddisks are accessed in LBA instead of CHS mode. Besides, what is the point to require the user to go through additional hoops like this? The speed argument mentioned later in this discussion is tripple nonsense and the authors of it should know better. Surely the version control which was intended as the main benefit of this license doesn't benefit from an approach like this where user is supposed to patch his own software. In any case this discussion is pretty academic, I do not intend to do extra work like providing patches just to please a broken license. BTW how is it possible that newest QPC has some nonstandard SMSQ extensions? Have these already been included in the official SMSQ version? Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 at 11:52:28, Richard Zidlicky wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:03:03AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Zidlicky[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes SNIP Absolutely not. If you are building hardware you can't simply provide the user with an official SMSQ version in EPROM and a patch on a floppy disk and expect him to apply the patch to the EPROM. No need. All versions of SMSQ/E for the Qxx (which is what we are talking about here - possibly the GoldFire later but that will have flash ROM) are LRESPR'able over the source code on the ROM. That is what I do because I have an early version of the ROM. it will break when harddisks are accessed in LBA instead of CHS mode. That is interesting. I thought Tony Tebby had always intended that the SMSQ code could be LRESPRed. I suspect the majority of users are now running with LRESPRed SMSQ. Besides, what is the point to require the user to go through additional hoops like this? The speed argument mentioned later in this discussion is tripple nonsense and the authors of it should know better. You need to explain the 'triple' nonsense. Surely the version control which was intended as the main benefit of this license doesn't benefit from an approach like this where user is supposed to patch his own software. It is not a patch - it is the identical code to the ROM version. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname.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] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 at 12:38:59, Mike MacNamara wrote: (ref: 00ab01c2184f$12b9e190$c272893e@macnamarxmjd3y) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: Jochen Merz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE Whets the point in having an EPROM if you have to LRESPR on patches and extensions, apart from the waste of memory and loading time, altering boots, etc. Who wants old code lying about when they can have good clean updates instead, not me for sure. Loading the OS from (slow access) EPROM to (fast access) RAM is of benefit. SMSQ/E is so small, that the speed you gain will outweigh the memory loss easily. That was done on other systems to gain speed. The old code is erased anyway, so does not take up any additional RAM. Thanks Jochen, if you load 'new' code into ram rather than 'old' code then lrespr an 'updated' code over it, surely that takes longer? One of my biggest problems with QLs, as they used Superhermes, was Lrespr'ing the Superhermes code in before a keyboard would work. Any problems with disks or programs( corrupted/deleted boots) caused a lock out. What a hassle to make a boot disk(if I could find a S/Hermes disk) to try and get back in, The perfect solution to this is to put the sH code in as a 'romn' file on RomDisq - and it is then loaded before the BOOT program. that is until SMSQ/E came with the Superhermes code already installed (thanks Roy), If I 'lost' the OS in the same way it would be a real drag. Surely better with 'new' code on eprom, where it is reasonably safe? but slower. I would go for speed any time. The time and ram involved is small. -- Tony Firshman
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Jochen wrote: Loading the OS from (slow access) EPROM to (fast access) RAM is of benefit. Yep, and it takes just a memory copy from ROM to RAM, which the OS can apply to itself at startup. BTW the Q60 with its 32 bit wide ROM bus isn't much slower than RAM. SMSQ/E is so small, that the speed you gain will outweight the memory loss easily. That was done on other systems to gain speed. The old code is erased anyway, so does not take up any additional RAM. Problem is boot speed if upgrade is on (hard)disk instead of ROM. If you load the new OS from disk, using an older version of the OS, you always need to boot the whole OS twice. This would happen on Qxx if upgrades come only on (hard)disk. On the other hand, SMSQ/E could be (almost) as fast as a simple loader. AFAIK it just wastes time with ineffient hardware initialization. Peter
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
- Original Message - From: Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 6:04 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 at 12:38:59, Mike MacNamara wrote: (ref: 00ab01c2184f$12b9e190$c272893e@macnamarxmjd3y) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: Jochen Merz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE Thanks Jochen, if you load 'new' code into ram rather than 'old' code then lrespr an 'updated' code over it, surely that takes longer? One of my biggest problems with QLs, as they used Superhermes, was Lrespr'ing the Superhermes code in before a keyboard would work. Any problems with disks or programs( corrupted/deleted boots) caused a lock out. What a hassle to make a boot disk(if I could find a S/Hermes disk) to try and get back in, The perfect solution to this is to put the sH code in as a 'romn' file on RomDisq - and it is then loaded before the BOOT program. that is until SMSQ/E came with the Superhermes code already installed (thanks Roy), If I 'lost' the OS in the same way it would be a real drag. Surely better with 'new' code on eprom, where it is reasonably safe? but slower. I would go for speed any time. The time and ram involved is small. I almost agree Tony, I think RomDisq is great, BUT, I can remember phoning you to find out if I could recover my files after I had tried many times without success, but then succeeded, in crashing the Romdisq.. After reloading its 'works', it of course was blank, and again no keyboard to rectify things with. The simple answer is of course to have a backup on an ED or several HD disks, not on a HDD because you can't get back into that having lost the boot and OS and keyboard driver. I think I'll go along with the albeit slightly slower Eprom solution, but much safer, and far less stress regards Mike. -- Tony Firshman
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Mike MacNamara writes: I almost agree Tony, I think RomDisq is great, BUT, I can remember phoning you to find out if I could recover my files after I had tried many times without success, but then succeeded, in crashing the Romdisq.. After reloading its 'works', it of course was blank, and again no keyboard to rectify things with. The simple answer is of course to have a backup on an ED or several HD disks, not on a HDD because you can't get back into that having lost the boot and OS and keyboard driver. I think I'll go along with the albeit slightly slower Eprom solution, but much safer, and far less stress The answer here is the one youd use with any OS: An Emergency Boot Disk (floppy or CD). Stick a big red lable on it and put it in your EBD box. No fumbling in the dark anymore.. Per
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
In a message dated 17/06/02 23:35:39 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cut The problem here is that it does fragment the community - I see nothing in the current licence which prevents giving the binaries away for nothing, provided that the 10 Euro fee is still paid to TT for each new copy sold (or given away), so long as you register as an authorised reseller. the problem is the license says otherwise, read it. It is 10 Euro now, it may be 50 Euro next year, nobody knows. Or perhaps someone does know but doesn't say. With this license Peter isn't sure he could provide even minor fixes for Q40/Q60 related issues free of cost to the user (actually afaics he is convinced to the opposite). If Wolfgang accepts some royalty financed extension to SMSQ in the meantime the user does have to buy a new license and pay the extra royalties just to get the free fixes - the requirement of a single official SMSQ version causes this. I consider getting free bugfixes say at the basis of current functionality pretty essential. The people *have* paid the license so all bugfixes must be free unless they require complete rewrite of the code. And availablity of bugfixes *must* be independent of the purchase of some new fancy extension that will almost certainly introduce a whole load of new bugs. Basically I am trying to make sure we have the right to decline the M$ way of doing business. Not that I would accuse anybody of planning it but I know from own experience how often new versions of software introduce new problems which nobody desired. Can you and Peter please highlight the clause in the licence which prevents copies of SMSQ.E binaries being given away or updates given at nil cost (I seem to have lost my copy of the licence ahhh!). So far as I read it, so long as the royalty to TT (or other commercial author) is paid, there seems no restriction on the price actually charged for an SMSQ/E binary. I agree that if someone adds a commercial element to the main core, the user will have to pay to get the latest version, but it is unlikely to happen in reality and if it does, the user has the option not to upgrade. In any event, market forces dictate that it is unlikely that anyone will pay for a change to the core which no-one actually wants, so why would the Q40/Q60 users object to paying for the extra functionality?? Free upgrades appear to be covered under the licence - but this is where I am lost without my copy of the licence!! you should be wary of having a specific clause to say that all Qx0 binaries can be distributed freely because this may put off anyone who does want to do some commercial coding for the Qx0. I would not mind if someone wants to sell "enhanced" binaries and claim extra money. Shouldn't the user have the choice whether he takes the free binary or something fancy? cut I agree that a user should have the choice whether to take updates to the free binary or not.. However, it is not practical to keep several versions of the code running concurrently and expect programmers to maintain all those versions. The last thing we want (and hence the reason for keeping one main core version of SMSQ/E) is for the resellers/programmers to be asked to fix a bug in a free version of SMSQ/E for the Q40 which they have already fixed in a commercial version which could need a lot more work to do, particularly if they have relied on something added by the commercial version (whether it is their own or not) And according to your view of the licence, you would want them to do this bug fix for free!! This could end up with the old adage of re-inventing the wheel, as a non-commercial programmer is asked to fix something in the free version which has already been fixed (months, maybe years ago) in the commercial version... Frankly I consider all the arguments for a single official SMSQ completely bogus. There is also some philosophical and practical problems with royalties in the SMSQ license. If someone develops an ISO 9660 reader should users without CD reader pay the royalties for this? What happens if the author doesn't maintain his code for say 2 years or it becomes obsoleted by something else? Should other developpers maintain the code while the author still receives royalties? What happens if something is implemented in such a way that it turns out a year later it prevents or heavilly obstructs some other development? I have practice in operating systems development so I know this happens very often unfortunately. Having royalty payments will often lead to the situation where other developpers say let the guy who gets the royalties fix his code. cut Yes, I agree - that is why I have suggested to Wolfgang that the licence include a clause stating that any additions to the core binaries (commercial or not) must be supplied with a copy of the source code to the registrar, stating whether the source is to be distributed as part of the source code distribution.
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 07:43:36AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you and Peter please highlight the clause in the licence which prevents copies of SMSQ.E binaries being given away or updates given at nil cost (I seem to have lost my copy of the licence ahhh!). So far as I read it, so long as the royalty to TT (or other commercial author) is paid, there seems no restriction on the price actually charged for an SMSQ/E binary. you read it correctly, however there are 2 problems. - the license fee may change anytime and Wolfgang can then prohibit free upgrades, the license explicitly says this. - nobody (not even official resellers) is allowed to sell or otherwise distribute modified (say bugfixed ) versions of the binary I will email you the license by pm. I agree that if someone adds a commercial element to the main core, the user will have to pay to get the latest version, but it is unlikely to happen in reality and if it does, the user has the option not to upgrade. does he? Well if there were important bugfixes in the meantime even if they are completely unrelated to the commercial element there is no way anyone (except Wolfgang) could provide just the bugfixes, without the need to upgrade to the new commercial code. In any event, market forces dictate that it is unlikely that anyone will pay for a change to the core which no-one actually wants, so why would the Q40/Q60 users object to paying for the extra functionality?? Unfortunately the users have absolutely no choice whether they pay the extra functionality so market forces are ruled out. Wolfgang decides what goes into the official SMSQ version and your only choice is either buy the official binary or stick with some old version and old bugs. I would not mind if someone wants to sell enhanced binaries and claim extra money. Shouldn't the user have the choice whether he takes the free binary or something fancy? cut I agree that a user should have the choice whether to take updates to the free binary or not.. However, it is not practical to keep several versions of the code running concurrently and expect programmers to maintain all those versions. we are not speaking about different versions, merely different configurations. For technical reasons (mainly testing) it should be obligatory that for every new feature added it should be possible to exclude it from the built binary. Once you have this ability than it is no extra effort. The last thing we want (and hence the reason for keeping one main core version of SMSQ/E) is for the resellers/programmers to be asked to fix a bug in a free version of SMSQ/E for the Q40 which they have already fixed in a commercial version which could need a lot more work to do, particularly if they have relied on something added by the commercial version (whether it is their own or not) this is extremely unlikely considering the bugs I have in my mind. And according to your view of the licence, you would want them to do this bug fix for free!! it was not my view of the license, the license doesn't say anything like this. My view is that if someone does the bugfix for free than the bugfix should be available - for free. Not bundled with some extra commercial software the user may or may not need. This could end up with the old adage of re-inventing the wheel, as a non-commercial programmer is asked to fix something in the free version which has already been fixed (months, maybe years ago) in the commercial version... no, people would simply buy the commercial version if it has something they want. Frankly I consider all the arguments for a single official SMSQ completely bogus. There is also some philosophical and practical problems with royalties in the SMSQ license. If someone develops an ISO 9660 reader should users without CD reader pay the royalties for this? What happens if the author doesn't maintain his code for say 2 years or it becomes obsoleted by something else? Should other developpers maintain the code while the author still receives royalties? What happens if something is implemented in such a way that it turns out a year later it prevents or heavilly obstructs some other development? I have practice in operating systems development so I know this happens very often unfortunately. Having royalty payments will often lead to the situation where other developpers say let the guy who gets the royalties fix his code. cut Yes, I agree - that is why I have suggested to Wolfgang that the licence include a clause stating that any additions to the core binaries (commercial or not) must be supplied with a copy of the source code to the registrar, stating whether the source is to be distributed as part of the source code distribution. afaics this is exactly what the license says, or rather intends to say. It is not very reasonable imo because when the
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 12:19:47AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Zidlicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The problem here is that it does fragment the community - I see nothing in the current licence which prevents giving the binaries away for nothing, provided that the 10 Euro fee is still paid to TT for each new copy sold (or given away), so long as you register as an authorised reseller. the problem is the license says otherwise, read it. It is 10 Euro now, it may be 50 Euro next year, nobody knows. Or perhaps someone does know but doesn't say. Whatever makes anyone think that the licence fee might change ? Read the license, if you need legal expertise ask Wolfgang. With this license Peter isn't sure he could provide even minor fixes for Q40/Q60 related issues free of cost to the user (actually afaics he is convinced to the opposite). If Wolfgang accepts some royalty financed extension to SMSQ in the meantime the user does have to buy a new license and pay the extra royalties just to get the free fixes - the requirement of a single official SMSQ version causes this. The fee is a one off. IF you buy a copy of SMSQ/E or own a copy already then any upgrade is free provided the author of the upgrade is not asking for a fee. I have always only charged for postage when upgrading SMSQ/E within the version number. I have also done it for free at shows. Maybe the licence should specifically state this to avoid the spread of paranoia. I have said this so many times now that my fingers can type it in my sleep. I would very hapilly agree with you, unfortunately the license says something completely different. I consider getting free bugfixes say at the basis of current functionality pretty essential. The people *have* paid the license so all bugfixes must be free unless they require complete rewrite of the code. And availablity of bugfixes *must* be independent of the purchase of some new fancy extension that will almost certainly introduce a whole load of new bugs. This is the reason for the licence. There may be someone who wants to write an extension and get paid for it. We hope that most of these will be modules which can be added onto the code by the user (fairly simple to do) so we really hope to try to keep all upgrades free. I would hope this too but that is not quite enough. I am pretty good at reading licenses, not someone else' mind so all I can see is this license. If you want the license to say something else than it says now, change it to say what you mean. Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 10:34:02AM +0200, Richard Zidlicky wrote: On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:26:20PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Richard Zidlicky wrote: You can have free 'Open Source' code and Richard et al will write for it and Marcel and a few others will quit Did you ask Marcel? He knows my opinion quite well, yes. And what he wrote is true. so I assume Roy was also correct when he claimed that it was agreed not to take any additional roylaties for SMSQ beyound the 10 Euro for TT. still missing the answer to this question. Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Richard Zidlicky wrote: so I assume Roy was also correct when he claimed that it was agreed not to take any additional roylaties for SMSQ beyound the 10 Euro for TT. still missing the answer to this question. For the SMSQ as it is available now this is true, yes. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
OK, time to put in my teo-penneth worth. This discussion/arguing needs to be brought to a swift end - it is in danger of not only fragmenting the whole QL scene even further, but putting people off the QL, SMSQ/E and this email list at a time when we all need to band together. We do not need to start again with a different licence (GPL or otherwise) as this will just provoke further discussion from those who are not willing to work under that licence as it stands. What we need is the Grafs (after discussion with Richard) to list which clauses in the licence they feel prevent further development for the Q40/Q60 operating system (I currently cannot see where the problems lie) and propose replacement clauses which they would find acceptable and which should not prevent commercial development of SMSQ/E also. Not everyone is willing to carry out work for nothing but on the other hand, not everyone would demand payment for their work. Until some specfic proposals for changes to the licence are put forward by the Grafs their comments are just going to be seen as mindless bickering. I think Wolfgang should give a cut off point of say 7 days for proposals to be put forward, after which, if nothing is received, the licence should be adopted as it stands. Rich Mellor RWAP Software 7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR TEL: 01977 614299 http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
In a message dated 15/06/02 12:39:54 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Rich, a specific proposal has already been put forward to Wolfgang many weeks ago. It was a small exception for Qx0 in the license, which was to allow free public distribution of the official Qx0 binaries, while I personally contribute the fee for Tony Tebby. For ease of use, I wanted a one-time payment, but I also offered to pay for additional boards, should the number of boards be higher than expected. The reason behind this idea was to make sure that every author who writes code for Qx0, can be sure his executable will be *available*, regardless of my person. This would give the non-commercial authors a feeling of savety that their code won't be lost. This will surely not motivate folks like Richard for major work, but maybe he would contribute a minor fix now and then. I don't know. Do you think it could help to re-phrase this to suit the latest draft and mail it again? Or would this only lead to further accusation and escalation? The problem here is that it does fragment the community - I see nothing in the current licence which prevents giving the binaries away for nothing, provided that the 10 Euro fee is still paid to TT for each new copy sold (or given away), so long as you register as an authorised reseller. Maybe you could highlight the particular clause which prevents this. I think you should be wary of having a specific clause to say that all Qx0 binaries can be distributed freely because this may put off anyone who does want to do some commercial coding for the Qx0. We don't have to worry about people passing the binaries around, as anyone who has a Qx0 will have SMSQ/E already. As for future support, since the resellers all currently offer free upgrades, it is unlikely that you need to worry about what happens in the future should you not be around.. Let me know the exact clauses in the licence which are stopping you from doing what you want and this gives a point to move forward from. 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] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:26:20PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Richard Zidlicky wrote: You can have free 'Open Source' code and Richard et al will write for it and Marcel and a few others will quit Did you ask Marcel? He knows my opinion quite well, yes. And what he wrote is true. so I assume Roy was also correct when he claimed that it was agreed not to take any additional roylaties for SMSQ beyound the 10 Euro for TT. Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On 11 Jun 2002, at 16:34, Richard Zidlicky wrote: (snip - mostly of the GPL licence - you have your understanding, I have mine) Whoa there. Would those who do these bad and evil things please step forward. Hmmm - nobody? How strange. really funny that, but aren't you supposed to give the answer here? I don't know, you tell me. I never talked about a lobby, Peter Graf did. I have asked you several times privately and at least one time in public who those subjects are or what kind of project they have in mind that must be so desperately included in core SMSQ and requires royalty payments in the hope we could find some compromise based on facts. I have not seen an answer from you so I gain the impression that you are just playing with the public. I see. So what you means is that the fact that I am able to anticipate that there might be commercial developments in the QL world, means that there is a lobby pressuring me (and/or TT). Fine. I'll just let that stand for itself. It would be sure cheaper for Peter, but perhaps he wants a few guarantees that your licence doesn't give him. Back to that question again. I fail to see what guarantees he hasn't got. He STILL hasn't said he wants to become a reseller, so, of course, he STILL can't be sure that somebody will sell Q60 SMSQ/E. With your licence SMSQ clearly looses because nobody has sufficient guarantees on anything. Even Marcel Kilgus should realise that this license can make his life interesting. All the sudden there may be parts of the OS from which he will not have the source but may still be buggy or interact badly with his code and affect stability of QPC. No change there, is there? What you seem to be proposing is that, since in your proposal he would have the source code, Marcel could then debug other's code... Thanks, but no thanks? According to your interpretation he is not even allowed to disassemble this code or debug the problem. Hardly an improvement for him. Marcel, or you, or anybody, we're all in the same boat. This is why testing will become important, of course. This is why versioning will also become important, of course. I think we will be able to manage. Regarding my position on this license, I would only do paid work under this conditions. What an interesting development. I mean *paid*, not some ridiculous 20 Euro anually from royalties. SMSQ sales will be so weak for foreseeable future that you have absolutely no way to reward someone just by giving him royalties, all that you achieve with this part of the license is tainting the copyright *forever*. Scratch that nonsense, there are easier ways to make money with SMSQ. Great that we don't all think like that. I agree with you, that financial revenues are pretty bad in our small community - so fortunately, not all want the horrendous (in our context) amounts of money you want. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On 11 Jun 2002, at 22:21, Peter Graf wrote: Obvously not knowing he GPL. I'm afraid that the discussion about GPL (and whether I know it or not) will lead us too far astray. Let's just say that I will abide by my opinion on it. (snip) Do you really see what you are accusing me? Hey Peter, why am I accusing you of something? I only point out to what your proposal may lead (in my opinion). (...) No, under the current scheme, the Q60 target will practically be frozen, because no commercial developer is left for 68060 development TT was the only one. A dead target can not benefit from advantages. There are so many answers to that (eg. TT was the only one - he isn' any more -isn't that a better situation?). But, generally, I would dispute that statement. You seem to fear that the Q60/Q40 will be left behind in the development cycles. My role as registrar is to make sure that a coherent version for all machines exists. I have already set out a number of times that, in my mind, this means that the Q40/Q60 will profit, just like any other machine, from the general development that is done for SMSQ/E. If you really know better about Q60 development advantages than me, give guarantees the work I pointed out will be done under your NDA. If not leave it to the open source developers to decide under which license they can work. If I read your latest emails here to this list correctly, you seem to fear that there will be no development for the Q40/Q60 any more, because those who might be able/inclined to work with the Q40/Q60 are so miffed about the licence as it stands, that they won't do anything under it (dare I mention Richard). However, I still think that if these people refuse to work, then this is by THEIR choice. The way around this is not for them to try to bully their way into a licence with which the copyright holder, after all, agrees, by means of threats such as this way or no way. Please don't misunderstand me - I do respect Richard's opinion that, philosopfically, he can't work with such a licence. But I profoundly and fundamentally disagree with him over this. Give it a try and see! The current scheme is the best way to further split the QL world. Open source might re-unite SMSQ/E with other parts of the QL world, and developers who have previously not worked for it. I don't believe that for a semi-second. No people who have not previously worked for SMSQ/E will suddenly come out and say hey, a great new licence, let's do wome work under it. Those who insist on establishing their own commercial NDA based on TT's work, and on future free work of others, should consider that they also prevent this income for TT. In favour of forwarding to TT EUR 10 each for a few boards, and discouraging our best 68060 developers. Whoa there. Would those who do these bad and evil things please step forward. Hmmm - nobody? How strange. Oh, do you accept Open Source now? And what allows you to come to that strange opinion? () I have already asked you who exactly turned my proposal down. You keep it a secret. I don't know your secrets. Aha, so now I keep vital info from you. OK, let's explain (again!) the genral scheme under which I work the licence, and deal with proposals: I generally draft the text (e.g. of the licence). I then ask the opinion of those who were at Eindhoven - for no other reason than that they were there and helped set up this scheme. I then either ask TT about it, or if there is a general consensus that I can live with, make the proposal (or rejection of proposal) public. An exception was your offer for 2000 EUR. Since that money would go to TT directly, I only asked him or an opinion. The result, unfortunately for you, was the same (see my other email in reply to Robert). Peter, if you seriously think that I am in any way out to defraud you or the Q40/Q60 or the SMSQ/E for it, then I can't help you. However strange it may seem to you, TT himself would allow Open Source. No. Since you raise the queston of money, Just to put things straight: Those insisting on a commercial NDA have raised the question of money, not me. I would happily accept a non-commercial license. But if my money is needed so the Q60 developers and users have freedom to work and enjoy, well, I will give my share. Just to put things straight - nobody here asked you for money. All I am saying is that the end user, who gets a product pays money out of which 10 EUR go to TT. YOU have offered money, I haven't. I'm not in a generous mood, I'm with the back against the wall. I don't understand this comment. Who puts your back to the wall. What or who stops you from selling SMSQ/E for the Q40/Q60 right now? why not do the following: become a reseller but DON'T charge for the Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E - and pay TT 10 EUR for each copy thus sold. That way, nobody loses out: TT doesn't because he gets fair
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote: On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:44:29AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm afraid that the discussion about GPL (and whether I know it or not) will lead us too far astray. Let's just say that I will abide by my opinion on it. you do not have an opinion on it. You just plainly refuse to think about a reasonable license. Then went on to say: Perhaps we would get a bit futher with more humor. However, simply laughing at someones arguments isn't the way to convince me, quite the opposite - especially since you have left a whole bunch of my arguments simply unanswered. Richard, It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, or if you have a better way or not. If you in one breath dismiss out of hand what someone's saying, and moments later say laughing at someone's arguments isn't a way to convince you, well, that comes across very strangely... Just to crystalise the issue, what exactly are you losing under the proposed revised license? I can see what you'd gain (access to the source, ability to contribute to SMSQ's source directly, etc) but what do you lose? You couldn't do this before, so I'm at a loss to see how you'd be worse off... Dave
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On 13 Jun 2002, at 14:11, Richard Zidlicky replying to an email in reply to Peter Graf wrote: I'm afraid that the discussion about GPL (and whether I know it or not) will lead us too far astray. Let's just say that I will abide by my opinion on it. you do not have an opinion on it. You just plainly refuse to think about a reasonable license. OK, fine I don't have an opinion on it, then. I thought I did, though, and I'll still abide by my non-opinion... this is deceiving at best. Some serious developpers (not me) already explicitly wrote on this list that may contribute to SMSQ depending on the conditions of the new license. Deceiving, in an open email where I voice my opinion(oops, sorry, non opinion)? I think not. As to the rest : the operative word being may. I do firmly believe that this *was* the chance to overcome the split between QDOS, Minerva, QDOS Classic and SMSQ. Since SMSQ/E is the successor to QDOS, there is no split as such. Oh, I have read exactly what you said, and my answer still stands. So you still laugh about it? Oh yes - the idea of me being a sinister fiend coralling in SMSQ/E to avoid letting it into freedom is just too much to take seriously. Well I sure did have a few nice laughs about your perception of software development, licensing, copyright issues, GPL and a few other things. Again, that's absolutely fine with me. I'm at peace with my opinions. Perhaps we would get a bit futher with more humor. However, simply laughing at someones arguments isn't the way to convince me, quite the opposite - especially since you have left a whole bunch of my arguments simply unanswered. Since (i) I wasn't replying to your email but to Peter, that's not surprising and (ii) your arguments are just a rehash of your older arguments, that's not surprising, either. You are the one presenting ridiculous arguments here so that turns up the question why you don't present reasonable arguments Ah - but the most reasonable argument is totally unreasonable in the ears of those refusing to hear it, isn't it? I am not at all surprised someone smells conspiration. Mulder mode on I am. Conspiration means at least 2 persons doing it. So, who am I conspiring with/against? I presume you suppose that I am conspiring against Peter Graf -I fail to see who else it could be. However, since the system under which PG will fall is the same as for all versions of SMSQ/E, I fail to see how that is a conspiracy against PG specifically. Or else, I am conspiring against all of the SMSQ/E world. Oh yes, that must be it. Mulder mode off I think you could dispel those concerns quite easilly if you would take arguments seriously instead of laughing at them. I think that, failing to do exactly what YOU want me to do, I will NOT be able to dispell anything. I have tried, and now I frankly think that I have tried enough. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On 13 Jun 2002, at 14:23, Richard Zidlicky wrote: (...) Did you ask Marcel? I don't see that he could suffer any kind of disadvantage with GPL.. he is probably the last one who needs to worry about GPL. He can suffer some inconvenience with this license. I did not ask Marcel specifically. To do so, would be conspiring with him, wouldn't it? I think he reads this list... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: However strange it may seem to you, TT himself would allow Open Source. No. Don't try to spread this legend, you're in opposition to your own mails. Also Tony Tebby himself wrote me, that you proposed Open Source. He even asked me if not the Linux model would be better, in case a different model is required. It is also absolutely clear that Tony Tebby would have allowed distribution for free. This way your proposal would have turned into something that could be vaguely understood as an Open Source license. Not because Open Source software must be free of charge, but because that would remove the need for separate commercial agreements outside your license, and gives all authors some guarantee their code will be *available*. Open source is not only GPL, so if my GPL idea was not what Tony Tebby had in mind, this does nowhere mean that he would not have allowed Open Source. However I will wait for his answer, to see clearer. Peter
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
That is THE good opinion: please stop to suspect everybody of conspiracy or corruption or what... this LICENCE driven by Wolf and other historical supporters is the right way ! Jean-Louis DIANOUX - Original Message - From: Bill Cable [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE Just to crystalise the issue, what exactly are you losing under the proposed revised license? I can see what you'd gain (access to the source, ability to contribute to SMSQ's source directly, etc) but what do you lose? You couldn't do this before, so I'm at a loss to see how you'd be worse off... Dave, Richard felt as some others : I do firmly believe that this *was* the chance to overcome the split between QDOS, Minerva, QDOS Classic and SMSQ. We have to accept this unique license or ignore SMSQ. Some will participate and some will not. It is troubling that the developers of the most advanced QL hardware system feel locked out but maybe once we see what happens feelings can be soothed and solutions worked out. If there is a comspiracy it is a comspiracy in a teapot that affects no more than 300 people on the planet. This has been beat to death and we all have our own opinions by now so lets move on. I am interested to see what happens next. -- Bill
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Open source is not only GPL, so if my GPL idea was not what Tony Tebby had in mind, this does nowhere mean that he would not have allowed Open Source. However I will wait for his answer, to see clearer. and delay it even more ... then Wolfgang needs to reply back ... and so on. You don't give up, do you? Most people here on the list, except from you and Richard, seem to agree with the license after the recent modifications. Not everybody may be happy but they accept the compromise. If you want to be taken serious and the word compromise means to you what it seems to mean to all the others, then I'd say it is about time to accept it as it stands. Jim's mail was very good, and so was Dave's. And trying to skip Wolfgang AGAIN, who is approved by Tony, is not what I would call helpful, nor would I call this looking for a compromise. You gain more from the license than anybody else. For Marcel, hardly anything changes, for Roy and myself, hardly anything changes. You, however, get opportunities AND save money, and you keep on complaining and delaying. We are wasting our time here for you - that's what several people tried to tell you! Jochen
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
As for your compromise: what I read out of the mails was, that some Q40/Q60 programmers would only work under GPL. Fine, thats what they DEMAND, but where's the compromise? Maybe I'm wrong, but it is pointless anyway as it will not become GPL - Wolfgang said this quite clearly several mails ago. I go ahead with this and with his license. What YOU do is your business - accept it or leave it ... Aha, now we get to know the Merz way of compromise: Accept it or leave it. Thanks for making your attitude that clear Claus but then think about SMSQ/Es being sold with Q40/Q60s. On what basis are they/will they be? You better sort that out with registrar. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Aha, now we get to know the Merz way of compromise: Accept it or leave it. Thanks for making your attitude that clear Aha - you just joined the group, haven't you? Just like your brother: pick parts out of the context, twist it but then think about SMSQ/Es being sold with Q40/Q60s. On what basis are they/will they be? You better sort that out with registrar. ... any clever comment here, Claus? Jochen
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 02:17:11PM +, Dave P wrote: On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote: On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:56:31AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: No licence is set in stone (as Steve Hall remarked to me on the day before I left for the US show) and you can always change it later if it proves not to work. you can't. Once other people contributed you need permission from every single contributor to change the license and this can prove quite tricky. 1000 times trickier than fixing the original license. This is incorrect. The current license states that once contributed, code cannot be withdrawn, and that the contributor has surrendered their copyright claim to TT. Therefore, only TT needs to consent to a license change. Wrong. You do not withdraw the code, you simply do not give permission to use or distribute under a different license. If Wolfgang thinks that the submitter should in advance give permission to every thinkable change of the licence than he must definitely write it explicitly into the licence or require special formalities when accepting code. The license as is clearly does not say this.. maybe simply a problem with formulation but I would consider this a *very* *big* problem. If you think this is bad, well, you surrender the same control under the GPL. not quite the same. It says version X or any later version of GPL at your choice. However this section is not part of GPL so you can always limit it to GPL version 2 for example. Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Can this appalling discussion now come to an end, please? I am not prepared to evaluate any argument, however just, that is couched in such grotesque terms as we have witnessed in recent days and weeks. There is absolutely no value in such dialogue, and no one should allow themselves be goaded into participating at this level. It should be ignored where it cannot be stopped as it can only lead to mischief. Im all for honest and robust debate, but this is not it. Like it or not, Wolfgang has the authority to proceed, and in my opinion he ought to do so forthwith. Hopefully the odours will soon dissipate. Per
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On 14 Jun 2002, at 2:34, P Witte wrote: Can this appalling discussion now come to an end, please? I am not prepared to evaluate any argument, however just, that is couched in such grotesque terms as we have witnessed in recent days and weeks. There is absolutely no value in such dialogue, and no one should allow themselves be goaded into participating at this level. To be quite frank, I have a little problem there. I have already been accused of 1 - not answering the arguments brought forth 2 - conspiracy. They only way I see to disprove that, is to attempt to reply to the emails on this list. I've already changed my strategy and am no longer replying to each and every email but try to group my replies. I'm quite aware that by replying I keep fuelling the debate. But if I don't, it'll only be worse, because people will think that I am ignoring them. It should be ignored where it cannot be stopped as it can only lead to mischief. Im all for honest and robust debate, but this is not it. Agreed. Like it or not, Wolfgang has the authority to proceed, and in my opinion he ought to do so forthwith. I have done so. Come get it! Hopefully the odours will soon dissipate. I'll keep my gas mask handy... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Peter Graf wrote: Jochen Merz wrote: Wolfgang is doing all this in good faith, I'm sure, and I am also sure that he may be willing to change if it becomes clear that things don't work the way they were planned to work (hoping that it is not deliberately sabotaged). Who do you suspect of deliberate sabotage? Were all those compromise proposals which have been turned down, deliberate sabotage? Sorry, why are you so negative? I don't accuse anybody. I was not talking about past, it was about future ... So you raise public suspicion against persons of deliberate sabotage in the future. Who are the persons? What kind of sabotage are you talking about? I am not going to waste anymore time on THIS rubbish. The key sentence of my last few mails were: Give the license a chance, otherwise we keep writing endless emails forever and nothing will get done. You ALWAYS skip the positive bits and avoid replying to positive suggestions, and lead discussions to interpret things in a way they were never meant to be. Pick a sentence out of the context, twist it, misinterpret it and lead the discussion away to areas where it keeps on leading nowhere. No, thanks. As for your compromise: what I read out of the mails was, that some Q40/Q60 programmers would only work under GPL. Fine, thats what they DEMAND, but where's the compromise? Maybe I'm wrong, but it is pointless anyway as it will not become GPL - Wolfgang said this quite clearly several mails ago. I go ahead with this and with his license. What YOU do is your business - accept it or leave it ... but then think about SMSQ/Es being sold with Q40/Q60s. On what basis are they/will they be? You better sort that out with registrar. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Joachim van der Auwera wrote: Ok, what if TT can not be reached or found (or worse) ? Or he has no time or does not know anybody fit for the job... What if the amount of code added is such that he is a co-author, and not the main author? How can you expect people to write free code which may be impossible to dictribute if this happens? --- What if TT dies now? Nobody expects people to write anything : you dont want to dont. Richard wrote: -- Why Wolfgang doesn't take GPL is beyond me. This license has not onlytheoretical problems and Wolfgang is assuming much more responsibility than he seems to want. -- True - the responsibility is higher than I thought initially. However, if I had one inch of doubt on being able to handle the stuff, I would have resigned already. I will NEVER agree to GPL. Under GPL, as soon as you use the tiniest little bit of something GPL'd, you HAVE to make your code GPL, too. In my eyes, that licence is BY FAR more restrictive than the one for SMSQ/E. Joachim wrote In all the discussions about the state of the new license, I think many readers are not aware of how open source normally works, and possible commercial implications. (big snip of the rest). --- Thanks for clearing this up. As you say, there is no central versioning, no central control etc - which is what we try to avoid here. Joachim wrote: As far as I can see, this license means that each time a binary copy is passed on by the resellers, the fee for 10 EUR is to be paid to TT... If that is not what is intended (and that is what it seemed like before), then I think this has to be made explicit. -- The licence quite clearly says that some upgrades may be free. Same as now. Peter Graf wrote: --- Exactly. It would be so simple. Moreover, we have offered TT a compensation of EUR 2000.00 if he releases SMSQ/E (at least the version which he wrote for me) under the GPL. In view of this new development, I will of course take counsel with TT. The obvious result is that the licence will be delayed, and so will the release of the source code. Sorry. Peter continues - The GPL is a wellknown open source license, and thus encourages non-commercial development, which is now needed for Q40/Q60, because TT seems to give up. --- I have expressed above my reluctance of the GPL licence. Let us take, for example, QPC. QPC, at least in some ways, builds on SMSQ/E. If SMSQ/E were GPL, QPC would have to be made open source, too. Why should Marcel Kilgus agree to that (and, no, I have NOT discussed this with Marcel). The result: no more QPC? Is it worth it? On the other hand, under the current scheme, the Q40 SMSQ/E can benefit from the advantages brought into all of SMSQ/E. Peter continues: --- Those who insist on establishing their own commercial NDA based on TT's work, and on future free work of others, should consider that they also prevent this income for TT. In favour of forwarding to TT EUR 10 each for a few boards, and discouraging our best 68060 developers. Whoa there. Would those who do these bad and evil things please step forward. Hmmm - nobody? How strange. Just who are those Peter? However strange it may seem to you, the licence has been worked out with TT's agreement. I have made it clear in the licence that you can do your own development, and as long as it doesn't incorporate TT's code, you can, OF COURSE, do with it what you want -even have it distributed alongside with SMSQ/E (because you will refuse to have it within SMSQ/E). Since you raise the queston of money, I'd like to say the following, even though I try as much as possible to stay away from the financial aspect of this: The idea of paying 10 EUR to TT for each new copy sold was born in Eindhoven - TT never asked for money. We thought, and still think, that he should get some money for each copy sold. As to the question of paying 2000 EUR instead of forwarding 10 EUR for each board - since you are in this generous mood, why not do the following: become a reseller but DON'T charge for the Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E - and pay TT 10 EUR for each copy thus sold. That way, nobody loses out: TT doesn't because he gets fair money You don't, because you don't pay too much for a few boards The user doesn't because he doesn't pay for the Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E. Peter continues -- If there is a lobby that can not accept open source for their own targets, please release at least the Q40/Q60 version, which I have financed and now offer to pay even more, into freedom! --- Sorry, but whoa again. With the provision that I haven't
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Well said, Wolfgang, applause. Back from a very nice QL show in the USA, a few words from me: First of all, I'd say: leave the license as it is now else you will never get a result. You have asked for opinions and you have, in my opinion, adjusted the license so that it should suit most people. It is impossible to please anybody anyway, and I think you have worked out a good compromise. Of course, if there's somebody who ONLY wants it to be done his way, then, I believe, there's nothing more you can do. Peter really seems to be wanting to go his way, but I feel that this may lead to disadvantages for current and future Q40 and Q60 owners. Buying out Q40/Q60 would most likely lead to development splits, and the least signifant route will lose out. Whatever route this may be (Q60 OR QPC) is debateable, but there will be losers either way. We don't want and we don't need any losers. If the already small group of QLers splits up, then this will most likely increase the speed of the QL community dying. The few commercial authors left will be faced with even more different versions of the operating system for even less customers. So I think what you're actually deciding here about is an absolutely non-commercial QL scene run by Peter and Richard and maybe a few others and shut down the QL shows and the rest as we know it for years or carry on working together. Travelling to QL shows costs us commercial dealers a lot of money, we don't earn anything by doing this. But we like to be present and keep direct contact to other QLers. However, those who want everything for free are hardly seen at QL shows (no offense here, this is respected, I'm just mentioning this as a fact) but I expect that the people who try to keep the scene alive in social terms are respected too. Again, together is the key word, isn't it? This not necessarily means everybody has to like each other, but they should at least pull into the same direction - for everybody's benefit. I really would not want to see the Q60 going the way which, for example, CST's Thor went. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Richard wrote: -- Why Wolfgang doesn't take GPL is beyond me. This license has not onlytheoretical problems and Wolfgang is assuming much more responsibility than he seems to want. -- True - the responsibility is higher than I thought initially. However, if I had one inch of doubt on being able to handle the stuff, I would have resigned already. I will NEVER agree to GPL. Under GPL, as soon as you use the tiniest little bit of something GPL'd, you HAVE to make your code GPL, too. you have obviously not even looked at GPL but only read some anti-GPL fud instead, otherwise you would know how ridiculous that claim is. GPL has restrictions, those affect only code that is linked with the software or parts of it. Copyright holder *defines* what linking means exactly but common understanding (approximately translated into SMSQ speak) is that this holds only for code that + is part of SMSQ (tautology I know..) + and/or useses internal structures or interfaces of the software. Again, copyright holder decides what this means exactly. SMSQ modules for example would be under most circumstances free from any restrictions from GPL - as long as they don't textually cutpaste code from SMSQ. I consider this much less restricting than your license. If this is still too restrictive you can use LGPL and link and use non-(L)GPL code without restriction If you think that this is still too restrictive give special permissions though generally you will want as little special permissions as necessary. No, GPL is *not* the communist manifest.. Peter Graf wrote: --- Exactly. It would be so simple. Moreover, we have offered TT a compensation of EUR 2000.00 if he releases SMSQ/E (at least the version which he wrote for me) under the GPL. In view of this new development, I will of course take counsel with TT. The obvious result is that the licence will be delayed, and so will the release of the source code. Sorry. never mind. I appreciate that the licence already *did* improve in some ways and if there is someone who will want to develop with it I am sure he/she will appreciate this. Peter continues - The GPL is a wellknown open source license, and thus encourages non-commercial development, which is now needed for Q40/Q60, because TT seems to give up. --- I have expressed above my reluctance of the GPL licence. Let us take, for example, QPC. QPC, at least in some ways, builds on SMSQ/E. If SMSQ/E were GPL, QPC would have to be made open source, too. Why should Marcel Kilgus agree to that (and, no, I have NOT discussed this with Marcel). sorry but this is utter nonsense. As explained above, GPL only affects software which is linked with this software or parts thereof. QPC is not linked in technical sense with SMSQ and technically can never be because it is merely a piece of hardware on which SMSQ runs. This is just as absurd as claiming that every PC or PC emulator now has to be open source just because Linux which is GPL runs on it. Just to repeat it here: - all QDOS/SMSQ applications are not at all touched when SMSQ is GPL. - all emulators can continue to work unaffected. - absolutely no restriction for commercial or other drivers as long as they are loadable with 'lrespr' or similar - use LGPL or special permissions if you need more flexibility Personally I would not mind if some QPC related files of SMSQ would be completely outside the scope of this license which the copyright holder can easilly allow. Peter continues: --- Those who insist on establishing their own commercial NDA based on TT's work, and on future free work of others, should consider that they also prevent this income for TT. In favour of forwarding to TT EUR 10 each for a few boards, and discouraging our best 68060 developers. Whoa there. Would those who do these bad and evil things please step forward. Hmmm - nobody? How strange. really funny that, but aren't you supposed to give the answer here? I have asked you several times privately and at least one time in public who those subjects are or what kind of project they have in mind that must be so desperately included in core SMSQ and requires royalty payments in the hope we could find some compromise based on facts. I have not seen an answer from you so I gain the impression that you are just playing with the public. Just who are those Peter? However strange it may seem to you, the licence has been worked out with TT's agreement. I have made it clear in the licence that you can do your own development, and as long as it doesn't incorporate TT's code, you can, OF COURSE, do with it what you want -even have it distributed alongside with
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote: Richard wrote: I will NEVER agree to GPL. Under GPL, as soon as you use the tiniest little bit of something GPL'd, you HAVE to make your code GPL, too. you have obviously not even looked at GPL but only read some anti-GPL fud instead, otherwise you would know how ridiculous that claim is. Hmmm? My understanding, as an open source fan, is that the GPL is infectious - any software that includes GPL'd code is also GPL'd. You cannot use GPL'd code in non-GPL releases. If you directly include GPL'd code into your program than the resulting program should be GPL - but this is kind of obvious. You can't simply cutpaste code from some project and convert it to your copyright.. you can't do that even with BSD license which is exorbitantly liberal. You are actually quite lucky if you can reuse the code at all - of course the current SMSQ license is much more restricted in this sense and doesn't allow reuse of code outside of SMSQ for whatever purpose at all. The relevant problems I see are this: - adding code to the project. By default if you add code to a GPL project it has to be GPL. Again, I see it as rather obvious that code added to some project should obey to its license so this is about as infectious as any license I can think of. As always the copyright holder can give permission to link with whichever code he likes. Note for example, that Linus Thorvalds has for the purpose of the Linux kernel defined linking so that code that uses the loadable module interface is explicitly free of any restriction and as you know there are plenty of binary only modules for Linux.. the same might be desirable for SMSQ. - linking against project. SMSQ is not a library so I don't see any problems here. It could be made explictily clear that any code using documented SMSQ interfaces in any way is free of any restriction if that makes anyone sleep better. - reusing parts of code SMSQ code in other projects.. the case I have explained above. The infectious aspect of GPL is partly a historical misunderstanding and partly FSF policy. GPL version 1 was not so well formulated in this respect.. perhaps not quite unintentionally but that is offtopic. Where GPL *is* really infectious is with libraries. If a library is (c) GPL (not LGPL like libc!) than only GPL programs can link against the library.. that is why there is LGPL which places no restriction on the program which is linked against LGPL software. Since SMSQ is not a library this is very offtopic but it might help to clear up some confusion by mentioning the one prominent GPL library - readline. It was deliberately made GPL to make it a bit harder to write non-GPL programms.. such things do happen but aren't relevent in the case of an operating system. Last not least you mentioned gcc. Of course GPL does not say anything about what can or can't be compiled with gcc, nor does it infect license of code that someone happened to compile with gcc.. just as writing something in a GPL editor doesn't affect the copyright of the text. All it says is that all parts of gcc itself have to be GPL and if you reuse some part of gcc in other projects than this other project has to be GPL. Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Jochen Merz wrote: It is impossible to please anybody anyway, and I think you have worked out a good compromise. As far as Q60 is concerned, all compromise proposals were turned down. Not only mine. Also those from well-known impartial persons. Of course, if there's somebody who ONLY wants it to be done his way, then, I believe, there's nothing more you can do. Unfortunately this applied pretty exact to your commercial NDA, as far as availability of executables is concerned. See the comments made by others, not me. Peter really seems to be wanting to go his way, Well I propose Open Source like the majority of developers and users. This is how development works, when there is no significant commercial interest. There is nothing special about me. Open your eyes and look around the world!!! Your way with this strange NDA is surely much more special than Open Source. Unlike QPC SMSQ/E, Qx0 SMSQ/E has only non-commercial developers for the essential things. We need them! QPC itself can remain purely commercial. So why no open source OS? but I feel that this may lead to disadvantages for current and future Q40 and Q60 owners. I have been told that you don't wish to be involved with Q40 and Q60 SMSQ/E. Very likely the Q40 and Q60 users, developers and producers won't follow your feelings at this point. I'm sure they would like to see their OS version developed. Buying out Q40/Q60 would most likely lead to development splits, and the least signifant route will lose out. I would very much prefer not to buy out. You are very much invited to join Open Source! Yes, you can even make a little money with it, and have more development. Why not consider a modern and liberal approach? Also keep in mind that I don't wish to buy anything for myself. The GPL gives freedom for all developers and users. And of course I don't insist on GPL, if something else is more acceptable for the majority of developrs. If the already small group of QLers splits up, then this will most likely increase the speed of the QL community dying. So don't insist on a strange NDA that is likely to split our community. Allow a license so all can join! The few commercial authors left will be faced with even more different versions of the operating system for even less customers. Likely if your NDA persists. Unlikely with an Open Source SMSQ/E. So I think what you're actually deciding here about is an absolutely non-commercial QL scene run by Peter and Richard and maybe a few others and shut down the QL shows and the rest as we know it for years or carry on working together. Why not get yourself more information what open source, e.g. GPL means. Surely not what you are painting there. BTW non-commercial developers are the vast majority in the QL scene, not only a few. And: Under the GPL free doesn't necessarily mean free of charge! You are allowed to charge money, but you are not forced to do so. Maybe you can, in the long term, earn more money in a lively developed scene with the OS under the GPL than with your own NDA! You can concentrate on selling QPC, and your well-known support and handbooks. The OS license itself could be more liberal without affecting this. Travelling to QL shows costs us commercial dealers a lot of money, we don't earn anything by doing this. So why all the fuss to keep SMSQ/E strictly commercial? Again, together is the key word, isn't it? Yes, so don't lock out good open source developers with your NDA. This not necessarily means everybody has to like each other, but they should at least pull into the same direction - for everybody's benefit. YES! I really would not want to see the Q60 going the way which, for example, CST's Thor went. So please give up your resistance against compromise. Peter
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
At 05:09 PM 6/11/2002 +0100, you wrote: On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote: Richard wrote: I will NEVER agree to GPL. Under GPL, as soon as you use the tiniest little bit of something GPL'd, you HAVE to make your code GPL, too. Hmmm? My understanding, as an open source fan, is that the GPL is infectious - any software that includes GPL'd code is also GPL'd. You cannot use GPL'd code in non-GPL releases. It is OK to use GPL code for your own purposes, but if you provide the whole package to somebody else, you either have to remove the GPL'd code, or release the whole thing as GPL. I see this feature of GPL as a good thing. This prevents somebody from stealing somebody else's code and making it commercial or whatever. If you find the GPL too restrictive in this respect, then don't steal the code and write it yourself. The C libraries and gcc are GPL'd. The GCC libraries are not GPL'd. They fall under a GNU Library License, which allows GCC compiled code to be sold commercially, even including the binary libraries (but not the source libraries). GNU has Licenses for Software, Libraries and Documentation as three separate licenses, because each have unique issues. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE Hi all, Ok, I've gone away and started to draft the licence. I think it's time to go forward - because this is now the only point stopping me from distributing the sources to whoever will have them. Here is what I have come up with. snip Wolfgang OK I've read that, it doesn't seem to be much different from when I first read about it. You should apply a simple test to these conditions as set out - if the conditions are right nearly everyone will agree to it, if people do not agree with it then the conditions are wrong. You are trying to make the people fit the licence, you should be making the licence fit the people. It does look like you have taken too much on, you might benefit if you shared more of the responsibility. Why not ask for an alternative licence to be drawn up by someone else and compare them, progress might be made. Dennis - DD Systems
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE - updates
As far as I can see, this license means that each time a binary copy is passed on by the resellers, the fee for 10 EUR is to be paid to TT... If that is not what is intended (and that is what it seemed like before), then I think this has to be made explicit. Joachim
