RE: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Norman Dunbar
Wolfgang, even though there have been astonishingly few reactions so far. Probably shock ! TT allows SMSQ to go 'open' - it shocked me ! Of course, I take that as full approval of what been done You have my approval. Hopefully, when you get sorted out, I'll be sending off my IRC

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Thierry Godefroy
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:39:27 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Following the discussions at EIndhoven,here is what has been agreed upon, Tony TEBBY also having agreed to it: In short: In short this is GREAT NEWS ! :-)) Finally, I would like to add a personal note: A

[ql-users] NB:- New email addresses for Q-Celt/Darren Branagh

2002-03-26 Thread Darren . Branagh
Hi All, Most of you by now will be aware of the the fact that I am leaving my current job (a Sys Admin for the the Bank Of Ireland) and will be running a new business of my own (a computer training centre/internet and email shop) . Therefore, as and from Thursday 28th March, at 5pm, my

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Tony Firshman
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 at 08:01:22, Jerome Grimbert wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read } I have understood the bit about no charge in giving copies. As someone } running a PD library I'll mention here I'm happy to adhere strictly by } this. } I

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Jerome Grimbert
Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read } Outside ones own country, IRCs have to be used which is 'payment' of a } sort - but in stamps. } Surely no problem with this? Probably not any problem, as long as it does not appear on the accounting system and thus leave no trace for

RE: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread wlenerz
On 26 Mar 2002, at 8:58, Norman Dunbar wrote: You have my approval. Hopefully, when you get sorted out, I'll be sending off my IRC coupons for a CD and having my first look at the source code. Who knows, I might be able to (a) understand it and (b) contribute. Thanks for the approval. I'll

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread wlenerz
On 25 Mar 2002, at 11:29, John Hall wrote: Some hypothetical questions: i) Would I be able to give away my modification(s) in source form without including the official distribution sources? ii) Would I be able to give away my modified version of SMSQ/E in compiled form? iii) Would

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread wlenerz
On 26 Mar 2002, at 10:42, Thierry Godefroy wrote: QXL - Thierry Godefroy Why not ? Although my programming efforts will be mainly turned towards the Q60, now... Well there doesn't seem to be anybody who knows the QXL as you do (did?). Aurora ? SuperGoldCard ? I got Aurora+SGC,

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Dilwyn Jones
I have understood the bit about no charge in giving copies. As someone running a PD library I'll mention here I'm happy to adhere strictly by this. I was surprised that media/post costs were vetoed I must admit. Surely that is a bit of an imposition on the sender. Not really, the circumstances

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Richard Zidlicky
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 06:39:27AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Following the discussions at EIndhoven,here is what has been agreed upon, Tony TEBBY also having agreed to it: In short: Whilst Tony Tebby will retain copyright over the code, anyone may have a copy of the

RE: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Norman Dunbar
Put me down as a 'designated copier' - if you need any more. 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

[ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Dexter
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

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Lafe McCorkle
Jerome Grimbert wrote: Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read } Outside ones own country, IRCs have to be used which is 'payment' of a } sort - but in stamps. } Surely no problem with this? Probably not any problem, In my area of the US nobody has any idea what IRCs are.

Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Jerome Grimbert
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)

Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Dexter
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

RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Ian . Pine
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

Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Phoebus Dokos
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

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Phoebus Dokos
At 10:21 ðì 26/3/2002, you wrote: Jerome Grimbert wrote: Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read } Outside ones own country, IRCs have to be used which is 'payment' of a } sort - but in stamps. } Surely no problem with this? Probably not any problem, In my area of the US

Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Wolfgang Lenerz
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

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Wolfgang Lenerz
On 26 Mar 2002, at 12:25, Richard Zidlicky wrote: as far as I could understand the statements I am not sure whether it is allowed to give away SMSQ in binary form (whether or not acompanied by sources), can you please clarify this? This might be of great interest for HW vendors who want

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Wolfgang Lenerz
Wolfgang - Roughly how big are the entire source files in Kb/Mb? (Just curious) i don't have them yet... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com

RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Wolfgang Lenerz
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

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Marcel Kilgus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wolfgang - Roughly how big are the entire source files in Kb/Mb? (Just curious) Rough values: 1800 source files. 2,5 MB zipped. 5,5 MB extracted. Marcel

RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Dexter
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,

Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Phoebus Dokos
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

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Darren . Branagh
marcel wrote:- Rough values: 1800 source files. 2,5 MB zipped. 5,5 MB extracted. Marcel Thanks Marcel. Not a really big job then to make a few floppies for the distro, although a CD/Superdisk/Zip disk would be a better alternative... Even the 2.5Mb zipped file would fit split across two

Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Phoebus Dokos
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

Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Dexter
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

Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Phoebus Dokos
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

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Roy Wood
In message 3C9EC61F.3028.A3898@localhost, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi all, Following the discussions at EIndhoven,here is what has been agreed upon, Tony TEBBY also having agreed to it BIG SNIP : Wolfgang Well laid out and expressed Wolfgang. One thing you did not mention was that a proportion

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Richard Zidlicky
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 06:22:53PM +0100, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: On 26 Mar 2002, at 12:25, Richard Zidlicky wrote: as far as I could understand the statements I am not sure whether it is allowed to give away SMSQ in binary form (whether or not acompanied by sources), can you please

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Tony Firshman
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 at 12:15:47, Phoebus Dokos wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) The way IRCs work,it is evident to the sender as a notice is posted on the return letter (when IRCs are used). (At least that's what happens in Greece). This way you have an additional check on the distributor's

Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Roy Wood
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

Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Roy Wood
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

Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Phoebus Dokos
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,

Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status

2002-03-26 Thread Timothy Swenson
As one of the Pacific Time Zone QLer's, I get to be late to the conversations, but at least I can have a try at the final word. 3/ No distribution of SMSQ/E may be SOLD, except for for the official distribution. This interdiction includes that of including and distibuting SMSQ/E in Public

Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Dexter
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

Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms

2002-03-26 Thread Phoebus Dokos
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