In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Cave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have no axe to grind as regards any particular platform on which to 'ql'
(new verb). BUT I do hope that the arrival of open source, in whatever
form, will be recognised as an opportunity not
PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 15 March 2002 10:10
Subject: RE: [ql-users] Open source
Un tournant dans le monde QDOS/SMS !
A turning point indeed, as long as we can agree among ourselves how to
make best use of this excellent gesture.
--
Dilwyn Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.soft.net.uk
Like Wolfgang I think it's unreasonable to expect the prime developer to
also be the manager of the project. I have frequently been in such a
position as a software developer for my employer and it is in no way
ideal.
I agree as well. In fact, I think we should see this as a chance to have
OK, here one of the more important answers from me, the rest has to
wait until I have more time (this is also true for everybody waiting
for a private answer).
First of all some facts: SMSQ/E for QPC is not per default included in
the offer from Tony. Tony doesn't even have the source code for
From what Marcel is saying about his continuing to focus on QPC code
changes, and debate if he should port the changes to the Q40 (I hope that I
summarized that correctly), we may need to tailor our approach to how we do
this.
I would really, really, really, like to see SMSQ/E behave
On 15 Mar 2002, at 13:49, Arnould Nazarian wrote:
OK for me.
Arnould
Thanks Arnoud. I Knew I could count on you!
Wolfgang
-
www.wlenerz.com
On 15 Mar 2002, at 14:20, Dexter wrote:
Ok, now I am totally confused.
Welcome to the real world... :-)
You are right, of course, as to the true meaning of open source.
I'm not sure yet exactly what stutus the code will have.
i know that I personally would object about anybody selling
On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:04:16 +0100
Wolfgang Lenerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have also just learned that some people who might be interested
are on vacation, so perhaps we can give this some more time.
You're right, Richard is on a 3 weeks vacation, for example. He should be back in one
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 at 20:22:41, Timothy Swenson wrote:
(ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
From the Commercial Side, Roy Wood and Tony Firshman.
I think Roy and Jochen - ie much as now.
I have always been a hardware man (8-)#
It would be nice to get Lau involved, but I don't know his
availability
I
://www.Lynx-FS.com
-
-Original Message-
From: Tony Firshman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Open source
Yes - one gets to know people well in hot tubs (8-)#
URL:http://zx
Un tournant dans le monde QDOS/SMS !
-Message d'origine-
De : Wolfgang Lenerz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé : jeudi 14 mars 2002 18:58
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: [ql-users] Open source
Hi all,
I've just spoken to Tony Tebby. He agreeD, in principle, to make
SMSQ/ Open
2002 10:39
To: ql-users
Cc: marcel
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Open source
Phoebus Dokos wrote:
I think that the Open SMS project should begin, by going through the
sources and completely documenting them first and then
start doing changes
to bring all the versions on all the machines
On 15 Mar 2002, at 9:27, Tony Firshman wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 at 20:22:41, Timothy Swenson wrote:
(ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
From the Commercial Side, Roy Wood and Tony Firshman.
I think Roy and Jochen - ie much as now.
I have always been a hardware man (8-)#
Jus what would that
On 15 Mar 2002, at 2:43, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
I suggested Source forge due to the many tools available. CVS etc. and not
to suggest total anarchy!
Good!
I do agree in any case that for an OS a tighter control should be
implemented.
Don't forget that the project manager in any case is the
OK for me.
Arnould
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
I don't know about you, but I'll be sending him some money
instead, something like 150 euros. I KNOW he doesn't want any
(so I'll probably get a scalding), but I do think that his efforts, so far,
have not received AT ALL the financial results
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
If it is Open Source, there will be no more commercial status.
I'm, of course quite wiling to help in any way I can, even with the
actual coding. I do suggest, however, that the registrar (for want
of a better word(, keep a pretty tight rein
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
Open Source is open to anybody to download and modify according to their needs.
HOWEVER in order to make ANY modification a part of the official source
tree it has to be approved by the registrar and the governing body...
The difference is that a
At 07:48 AM 3/15/2002 +0100, you wrote:
On 14 Mar 2002, at 20:22, Timothy Swenson wrote:
The person who I think has the best qualifications to lead the group, due
to his in depth knowledge of QDOS, SMSQ/E and 68000 assembly code,
would be
Simon Goodwin.
I'm not so sure about that, due
At 02:20 PM 3/15/2002 +, you wrote:
Ok, now I am totally confused. Open source has a very specific meaning.
And this isn't it. If the source isn't going to be generally available, it
isn't open source, and you shouldn't call it that.
I think we can expect the source code to be available,
Hi all,
I've just spoken to Tony Tebby. He agreeD, in principle, to make
SMSQ/ Open Source.
We do have to find somebody to act as a sort of registrar, though,
to make sure that we have a coherent development.
Anybody wolunteering?
Wolfgang
-
www.wlenerz.com
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
I've just spoken to Tony Tebby. He agreeD, in principle, to make
SMSQ/ Open Source.
Ah, interesting. What means in principle? And what is the commercial
status supposed to be?
We do have to find somebody to act as a sort of registrar, though,
to make sure that we
On 14 Mar 2002, at 20:22, Timothy Swenson wrote:
The person who I think has the best qualifications to lead the group, due
to his in depth knowledge of QDOS, SMSQ/E and 68000 assembly code, would be
Simon Goodwin.
I'm not so sure about that, due to his strong opposition against the
PE.
On 14 Mar 2002, at 19:59, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Ah, interesting. What means in principle? And what is the commercial
status supposed to be?
If itis Open Source, there will be no more commercial status.
The in principle refers to the fact that Tony said he would do it if we find a
suitable
At 01:48 ðì 15/3/2002, you wrote:
large snip
Now for some more personal notes from me:
I'm, of course quite wiling to help in any way I can, even with the
actual coding. I do suggest, however, that the registrar (for want
of a better word(, keep a pretty tight rein over the way things are
24 matches
Mail list logo
