Re: [ql-users] Source Code
OK, this has now officially gone well into the ridiculous (I'm using a fair bit of energy to stop myself from using a much stronger word). The fact of the matter is, this argument over the licence is pointless because no one can nor should win it, because it's the wrong argument. There is NOTHING in the licence to stop anyone from contributing extensions to the OS speciffically to ENABLE using free or commercial stuff as add-ons to it. As long as that extension does not 'close' a part of the OS, and presents an added value to the core (and here is where the Registrar has the last word, which may well be the most difficult part of that job!), it will be included. This is equally true for support of speciffic platforms. The support for a platform per se is not nor should ever be part of an OS core - the ability to add this support externally SHOULD. Arguments about a platform not being able to be supported because programmers writing the support will not want to contribute the support to SMSQ under the current licence are invalid because they should not contribute that support in the first place. The part that they should contribute are the changes necessary to have this support as an external module, AND THAT'S IT. All that has to be done is show the registrar that this contribution is added value to the core in general. There is however nothing to prevent anyone from contributing the source to a speciffic add-on (for instance, a driver) to be distributed alongside the official distribution (i.e. sharing the same media) but that does not have to fall under this licence! Arguments that basically 'appropriate' the OS under excuse of the added support for a platform, in order to leverage a specific model of code distribution are flawed because they are based on a notion that platform support can only and therefore must be an integral part of the OS and should be distributed as one lump binary (or source). * Problem: special platforms like emulators that may have parts of the OS rewritten as native code. It would be in everyones best interest to devise a standard way of doing this, not just for a speciffic case but as a general resource (yes I am aware this is not easy!). If a contribution becomes a part of the official distribution, under the current licence the contribution has to be free. May I remind everyone that by gaining access to the source, you will essentially be able to use code that someone somewhere has paid for to be written, essentially for free. It logically follows that any contribution added to the official distribution must also be free. Also, if we are talking about the resultant official distribution still being SMSQ, since SMSQ is (c)TT, so is every subsequent version. Anyone can write a functionally equivalent system, not call it SMSQ and have it be (c) whoever. It's been done with Minerve and there were no problems there. Cases where you want to retain (c) should be handled by only submitting the absolutely necessary part as an extension to the OS core (like in the case of platform support, see above). The registrar should not guarantee inclusion of anything, nor it's persistence in the core, for a very good reason: no-ones contribution is 'the last word' in programming, never to be improved or expanded on - or even completely replaced. There has to be a means to do 'garbage collecting'. The best way to insure that a contributed extension stays there, is to design it well, and in the best interest of everyone and not just a speciffic group. If someone wants to engage in conspiracy theories, thay may find more fertile ground for that by submitting them as scripts for 'The X files' (even though the series has ended) rather than clogging up this list. * Problem: there has to be a means to decide which direction of development is preferred and who decides this, this is where the registrar's criteria for inclusion/exclusion comes from. This does not mean that the rules should be included in the licnece, instead, there MUST at least be a reference to some document containing the rules in the licence. That should be the basis of any guarantee to fairness when a contribution is considered for inclusion into the core. Availability of the binaries in any circumstance cannot be guaranteed, and it is absurd to even ask this. A meteor could hit the exact spot where they were kept and they would be lost (If you get my hint). Much of the argument on this is again based on the notion of binaries for a specific platform. The core should be general, the platform-speciffic add-ons may (and probably will) be associated with the 'manufacturer' of the platform are the responsibility of the said 'manufacturer'. By having a general core which 'everyone' needs, you guarantee it is available from multiple distributors, so chances of it getting lost are reduced. * Problem: a LOT of work needs to be done to SMSQ before it reaches that stage. This work is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in the long run. Under the
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 21 May 2002, at 23:22, Richard Zidlicky wrote: this is reasonable - but it makes it even more clear that the license has a problem. Someone buys HW with SMSQ included, his vendor/original reseller goes out of business and now what. The user can't even get the free SMSQ upgrades for his machine. Well isn't that normal? I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is the reality of our world. If you buy a product from someone who no longer exists, tough luck. (unless you have action, e.g., against the manufacturer). Likewise, who wouls take care of a hardware problem, if tour reseller went poof? The situation for the software isn't different in that respect. Surely no other reseller will be delighted to fill the gap and provide both upgrades and support for pp costs. Ironically, Wolfgang is forced by the license to compile the binaries for this obsolete platform. Oh,no, I'm not. I WANT to compile the sources for the obsoltet platforms - but remember, I don't supply binaries directly to anyone but the resellers. (rest snipped) Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 21 May 2002, at 21:54, Roy Wood wrote: Actually no. We have nothing against commercial extensions to the O/S, in fact we would love it to happen. We just want the main code to be uniform as I keep saying. I don't really like patches but you can LRESPR code into SMSQ/E and you can add your own modules. If we can sell these modules we would be very happy to do it and if the people want to give them away the same applies. I'll graft myself on to this discussion, for another point: The possibility exists in the licence as it stands now that new authors will want a financial retibution for the code that they have added. I presume that this is what Peter calls commercial developpers. Anyone who submits a new source to me for inclusion could tell me that they want xxx EUR for each copy of SMSQ/E sold with their code included. I would not exclude code just because of that aspect. Jowever, I don't want to be involved in the financial side of selling SMSQ/E (and I certainly DON'T want any momey for doing what I'm doing), so I would just be passing on this request to the resellers. There is a questio here, that still needs to be resolved,a nd it concerns Perter's wish to buy out the Q40/Q60 binaries. As I understand it, Peter would buy out the official version as it stands now. What about new versions as and when they come out. Would they still fall under this buy out? What if the new version, to which something wonderful might have been added, wasn't a free upgrade? What about retributions for authors who also want money? The above considerations MUST be addressed. Wolfgang -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] What do you want to do with the source to SMSQ ?
On 21 May 2002, at 19:40, Timothy Swenson wrote: I think I would find it useful to see the comments and hopefully they will document parts of SMSQ/E that is not fully documented. The code might shed some light on particular areas that I might have questions on. As I am not an assembly programmer, I don't know how readable the code will be to me. I would like to be able to answser that - unfortunatley, the time spent on the licening stuff has, up to now kept me from looking at the code! However, I CAN tell you from experience that you will need some knowledge of assembler to understand the code. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 21 May 2002, at 23:38, Jeremy Taffel wrote: A lengthy response, please don't flame, I would appreciate a considered response. And a VERY long reply... As long as you don't flame me, I don't flame you I don't think I did, at least, obviously you feel different... :-) Because instead of answering in a civil an unemotional way you get provoked into escalating the flame wars, and often don't address the legitimate (in their minds) concerns of some of those that ry to debate this. What kind of reaction do you expect when I'l being called a racketeer? (not by you!) (...) So he wants to program something, but not support it later on. Nice. That is not what I said. With the best will in the world, the key word here is guarantee. I know from personal experience that Richard, (and probably the others giving you grief on this list) provides exceptional support. You must know, however, how many platforms (and OS's) UQLX runs under, and any problems arising from unusual combinations of hardware and OS could take a long time for any individual to bottom out, especially if he hasn't got the access to that hardware. I imagine that similar guarantees are probably just as problematical with QPC given the variety of hardware and software drivers etc running Windows. Any such guarantees are essentially dishonest, and are only ever best efforts. That should be recognised, otherwise we should be asking questions like how quickly can we expect to get the bugs fixed? We don't because we are reasonable people. However some people when they read the licence interpret it literally. Well isn't that a legitimate question? If you buy on OS that is bugged in some fundamental way, isn't it your right to expect the bugs to get fixed? In the situation as it was until now, when a new version of SMSQ/E came out, it sometimes did have bugs. The users then contacted the person they bought their SMSQ/E from, most probably Jochen, Roy or Peter. They passed on the reports to Tony (or Markus, if the problem was QPC related) and the bugs got fixed. Ok, they got fixed sooner or later only - but they did get fixed. (At least I'm not aware of any major bug in SMSQ/E as it stands now - and please peole, I'm talking about bugs, not missing features!). I was making a serious point and received an unwaranted (in my opinion) sarcastic glib response. This really is not necessary. I didn't mean to offend you. The reply wasn't meant to be sarcastic, but reflects what I understood from your posting. However, the problem remains: How do you implement any kind of bugfix scheme in something like SMSQ/E if it becomes entirely free? Then there is no legal relationship whatsoever. However, many users require support. Hence the restriction on distributing the binaries. The reasoning I have always had is as follows: If anybody makes a change in the sources, then how will this be distributed? There is nothing that forces you to give your change to the registrar, if you don't want to - but then, you can only distribute your change as source code (if it contains original SMSQ/E code - if not, this licence doesn't concern you). If you give it away as source code, then, if the recipient can compile this and make himself a new SMSQ/E, then there is a fait chance that the recipient WILL NOT NEED ANY TECHNICAl SUPPORT, or at least, will know what the problems are. If the recipient can't compile everything, then he is more of a simple user - and he should not get untested binaries. He should buy SMSQ/E, or get an upgrade, from a reseller, who can supply support. (snip) UQLX is distributed as source, and in my experience most if not all Linux users are familiar with make-files. So lets see.. provided the developer provides the necessary compiler/cross-compiler and makefile(s) for the platform, he can freely distribute it as a set of source files. Sounds like open source to me. Only leaves the problem of how to get you to accept it into an official version (don't flame -see later comments). See above - if they can compile it, then they are probably sufficiently advanced to tinker with the system. There is ABSOLUTELY no problem in distributing the source code in this way - the restriction lies in the distribution of the binaries. We are still waiting on this list for a definition of support. It seems to be absolutely essental, but totally undefined! It seems, however to underpin most of your defence of the approach being taken. Ok, lets address this question here: What kind of support would you, the simple user, like? According to you, who should supply it? (snip) That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? But what's to stop you? Nothing. But, again, I don't see why one should suddenly change a licence that we have had so much trouble in setting up in the first place. That would only lead to outcries and rejections I think that part of your role is to provide the
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 21 May 2002, at 6:42, Peter Graf wrote: Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: There is no difference between the free and non free developper Sure there is. Your commercial developer has agreements outside this license that make sure his executables won't be lost, and will be sold for him by his resellers (which are also your appointed resellers). Not to my knowledge. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 22 May 2002, at 3:44, Dave wrote: The point is that people can write new modules that carry out *existing* module functionality, and distribute those, which actually increases the fragmentation of SMSQ in a way that the registrar is unable to control, because they would have no legal basis to do so. Even TT can't stop people writing replacement sections of SMSQ. Of course not. I wouldn't even try. Of course you can write replacement modules on your own, and distribute them. Not only that, once you have the source code, you can even write small patches, to get around some limitation or other, or whatever. There is NOTHING to force you to submit your code to the registrar. You CAN rewrite the whole OS. For me, the question is: why would you want to? Why not use your energy to make the existing even better, instead of reinventing the wheel? If your reply then is that you can't do that because of the licence as it stands right now, then I heartily disagree. The only thing you can't do under this licence is distribute the binaries - you can use them for testing purposes, which was one of your concerns. Why not let the resellers handle the distribution of binaries- hell, become a reseller yourself. If, on the other hand, you ansolutely want an OS with which you are entirely free to do whatever you want - OK, use Linux. It's human nature - I am certain beyond all doubt that there will be a thriving development scene for SMSQ, and 90% of it will be beyond the reach and control of the registrar. A situation which I would regret - but I agree with you, there will always be those who won't be persuaded to collaborate. I don't belive, however, that 90 % of the development will be done in htis manner. It would be in the majority of developer's interest NOT to contribute their efforts, but to simply pad out what is required and do a fee-based (not commercial, but fee-based, as in resellers are not doing this commercially, but fee-based, think about it ;) sorry, a fee-based what? Upgrade? Finally, I would like to say, as a moderate critic, that if you doubt my intentions, I would like you to consider my thinking for a brief moment. Why should I doubt your intentions? One who truly cares about the future of the scene will care greatly about what form this license takes. Yes, which is why I spend so much time on all of these emails. Those who do not care, or to whom the license is irrelevant, will remain silent. If I were a less honourable person, I would not point out the obvious flaws and weaknesses, or jump through the holes. I would leave them as wide open as possible and wait until they're adopted. Don't think your comments aren't welcome. I was, and am, well aware that the possibility to sell or give away your own add-on modules exist. But, as long as these modules don't contain any part of the original source code, not only don't I care, I can't even see on what grounds (other than moral) I would have the right to care (as Tim Swenson also pointed out) : it's your code... However, when it boils down to what really seems to be THE main point of the discussion, there seems to be an unreconcilable rift between those who fundamentally object to the fact that only the resellers can distribute the binaries on the one hand, and those who, like me, don't really understand what the fuss is all about in this respect. I can only say that, if my job as registrar, which I can see now will take far more time than I thought, leaves me some spare time, then I do intend to have a look at the code, and try to do some work on it. And, once done, if only the resellers can distribute the binaries for it - I DON'T CARE the least bit in the world. People may be critical, but that is a positive thing if someone's motives are to improve the license for everyone's sake. I don't criticise anybody for criticising the licence. When things get personal, though, I object, someimes forcefully. It's when a person tries to change the license for their own benefit, or stays mysteriously quiet that you have to worry. But how do you know that the person stays mysteriously quiet instead of just not intervening? :-) Yours constructively Thanks! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] qdos-gcc
On 21 May 2002, at 8:35, Michael Grunditz wrote: Hi I have posted this on ql-developers, but I didnt get an answer . I have installed qdos-gcc in NetBSD/Arm32, on my RiscPC. Everything seems fine , but when I transfer the executables to my Q40 with qltool on floppy, I cant run them. If I execute them from the shell I get return code -3. Are they still executables once transferred? (Do you have QPAC2 - you can check easily with that) Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Hi all, I just noticed that the batch of yesterday's replies, that I sent early this morning, has gone down the drain, through my own fault (I sent them with the wrong from address, and they are filtered from this list, rightly so). I don't keep copies of the emails I send, so if you haven't had a reply it's no wonder... I'll try to make this up over the next few days. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 22 May 2002, at 2:53, ZN wrote: (...) There is NOTHING in the licence to stop anyone from contributing extensions to the OS speciffically to ENABLE using free or commercial stuff as add-ons to it. As long as that extension does not 'close' a part of the OS, and presents an added value to the core (and here is where the Registrar has the last word, which may well be the most difficult part of that job!), it will be included. Yes. This is equally true for support of speciffic platforms. The support for a platform per se is not nor should ever be part of an OS core - the ability to add this support externally SHOULD. Arguments about a platform not being able to be supported because programmers writing the support will not want to contribute the support to SMSQ under the current licence are invalid because they should not contribute that support in the first place. The part that they should contribute are the changes necessary to have this support as an external module, AND THAT'S IT. I agree, sort of. I still would like the developpers to contibute under this licence - but I can live with the fact that external modules are used. All that has to be done is show the registrar that this contribution is added value to the core in general. There is however nothing to prevent anyone from contributing the source to a speciffic add-on (for instance, a driver) to be distributed alongside the official distribution (i.e. sharing the same media) but that does not have to fall under this licence! Yes, as I have already pointed out! (snip) If a contribution becomes a part of the official distribution, under the current licence the contribution has to be free. Not necessarily,see my other email. May I remind everyone that by gaining access to the source, you will essentially be able to use code that someone somewhere has paid for to be written, essentially for free. It logically follows that any contribution added to the official distribution must also be free. That is the way I personally see it. (...) The registrar should not guarantee inclusion of anything, nor it's persistence in the core, for a very good reason: As mentioned, I do have the last word in allowing code in or not. As also mentioned, if there is no reason not to include it, why should I exclude it? no-ones contribution is 'the last word' in programming, never to be improved or expanded on - or even completely replaced. ... even SMSQ/E itself - which is why we are discussiong all of this! (...) * Problem: there has to be a means to decide which direction of development is preferred and who decides this, this is where the registrar's criteria for inclusion/exclusion comes from. This does not mean that the rules should be included in the licnece, instead, there MUST at least be a reference to some document containing the rules in the licence. That should be the basis of any guarantee to fairness when a contribution is considered for inclusion into the core. this is not going to be easy. Mainly because I can neither predict, nor force, a direction of development. All I can do is - ask a specific developper if he wouldn't like to work on some specific aspect - warn him that somebody else is already doing something similar. All of this development is based on collaboration. If somebody doesn't want to collaborate I can't, and really don't want to, force them in any way. I wouldn't even use the threat of not including their code in the source - the ultimate test has to be the usefulness. Let's just say that the remaining QL developpers, at least those I know, are often a strongheaded bunch (no criticism implied, just a statement of fact) - steering them, so to speak, will NOT be easy. Availability of the binaries in any circumstance cannot be guaranteed, and it is absurd to even ask this. A meteor could hit the exact spot where they were kept and they would be lost (If you get my hint). Much of the argument on this is again based on the notion of binaries for a specific platform. And I have gone on record as saying that I attempt to have coherent versions of everything (for all machines). I CANNOT guarantee that all binaries will really be sold - that is NOT part of my function. But if somebody is afraid that binaries for his/her preferred machine will not be available, they could ask to become a reseller. Of course, then you have to supply support to the end user buying the binaries. So we come to the question of support again - this seems to be a bit of a problem in many people's mind, as it seems to me that some people refuse to become resellers because they are afraid of the burden of support they will have to supply. I have thought about this question a bit more now. Initially, I had in mind a very high standard of the support that would have to be granted, such as that currently supplied by Jochen Merz, who was my role model in this respect, because I know how
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 12:18:57AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: No we won't. Look. No one has to pay for SMSQ/E twice. If you have a copy of SMSQ/E for your platform then upgrades are free. I feel that many of you think that the rule that binaries should not be distributed for free applies to upgrades. As far as Jochen and I see it does not. Upgrades are always available and always free if the version number does not change (i.e. the bit before the '.'. I cannot see this happening) lack of foresight? We are at version 2.98 now, the sources Wolfgang received are already different from 2.98 so they would have to be called 2.99 if they were released as a version. So the next bugfix after that will cause version 3.00 to be released? Many programs expect the version to be a plain long word so you can't easilly call it 2.99a or something like that. Richard
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:06:31AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Roy Wood wrote: CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ??? Note that I said I 'was' in favour. Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. I seriously thought you were interested in a solution. I'm sure all Q40 and Q60 users will appreciate your helpful attitude. OH I am interested in a solution and I may also have misunderstood the nature of your intentions but, owing to your previous actions, many people now do not trust you. I had thought that, because of our ongoing disagreement, it was just me but it seems evident that it is not. You continually present two faces to the world. One that appears on this list as helpful and smiley and one that appears in private emails (and I have seen the ones you have sent to others) which are at best belligerent and at worst blackmail. This has made many of the people whose opinions are courted on these matters hostile to you. Maybe this is a misunderstanding of your nature. I don't know. As I said. I was not opposed to your suggestion until the downside was pointed out to me. Roy you are playing with fire. You might consider beeing more careful, if the substance of your disagreement with Peter ever goes public it might be not very favourable for you. Certainly we should try at any cost to keep this matter out of *this* discussion. Richard
Re: [ql-users] qdos-gcc
On Tue, 21 May 2002 08:35:29 +0100 Michael Grunditz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I have posted this on ql-developers, but I didnt get an answer . I have installed qdos-gcc in NetBSD/Arm32, on my RiscPC. Everything seems fine , but when I transfer the executables to my Q40 with qltool on floppy, I cant run them. If I execute them from the shell I get return code -3. Any clue ? /Michael Do you get the same return code when starting with EW? Just to make sure it has nothing to do with the shell, Claus
[ql-users] disagreement
On 22.05.2002 14:47:27, Richard Zidlicky wrote: Roy you are playing with fire. Everyone who goes into discussion with P. or C. Graf, is playing with fire! And I know what I'm talking about! You might consider beeing more careful, if the substance of your disagreement with Peter ever goes public it might be not very favourable for you. A threat remains a threat, even if packed in make-believe friendly words, Richard. What is it that you are crying for all these last weeks? I have learnt throughout the last years that P. and C. Graf have an unappeasable envy of Marcel Kilgus and attack and threaten everyone who - in their paranoid minds - sympathizes with him. Even if it was only from business aspects, the means they use, are far beyond from how healthy people discuss or even argue with each other. But you, what is your interest? Why are you so mistrusting, who in the QL-community has really cheated you so much that this is necessary? I am only a normal BASIC-programmer and still a convinced QL-fan. As far as I can understand the license, it could bring advantages and progress to all of us. Why is it that you only and purely see what could be wrong? Who are all those commercial developpers you always mention? Thus people who really can cope with the code of SMSQ? I only know very very few and they cannot even earn enough money with it to pay the visits of QL-shows! So, earnestly, what is this all about??? Wolfgang Uhlig
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
On Wed, 22 May 2002 01:06:31 +0100 Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Roy Wood wrote: CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ??? Note that I said I 'was' in favour. Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. I seriously thought you were interested in a solution. I'm sure all Q40 and Q60 users will appreciate your helpful attitude. OH I am interested in a solution and I may also have misunderstood the nature of your intentions but, owing to your previous actions, many people now do not trust you. I had thought that, because of our ongoing disagreement, it was just me but it seems evident that it is not. You continually present two faces to the world. One that appears on this list as helpful and smiley and one that appears in private emails (and I have seen the ones you have sent to others) which are at best belligerent and at worst blackmail. This has made many of the people whose opinions are courted on these matters hostile to you. Maybe this is a misunderstanding of your nature. I don't know. As I said. I was not opposed to your suggestion until the downside was pointed out to me. -- Roy Wood Come to your senses, Roy! This is not your list and you are not allowed to repeatedly throw dirt on others in public. If you cannot make a reasonable point, shut up. Telling lies and slander about a person is not how a discussion is held. If you are not able to suppress your hate, leave the list. Claus
Re: [ql-users] disagreement
On Wed, 22 May 2002 19:34:55 +0200 Wolfgang Uhlig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 22.05.2002 14:47:27, Richard Zidlicky wrote: Roy you are playing with fire. Everyone who goes into discussion with P. or C. Graf, is playing with fire! And I know what I'm talking about! Everyone who throws dirt on me may experience that it bounces back. My patience is not endless. I have learnt throughout the last years that P. and C. Graf have an unappeasable envy of Marcel Kilgus and attack and threaten everyone who - in their paranoid minds - sympathizes with him. Even if it was only from business aspects, the means they use, are far beyond from how healthy people discuss or even argue with each other. I have learned during the last years that everyone who dares to have a different opinion than certain show-offs gets personally attacked (OK, he who has no arguments starts to attack persons, a well known phenomena) Wolfgang Uhlig Claus
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
On 22.05.2002 20:44:07, Claus Graf wrote Come to your senses, Roy! This is not your list and you are not allowed to repeatedly throw dirt on others in public. If you cannot make a reasonable point, shut up. Telling lies and slander about a person is not how a discussion is held. If you are not able to suppress your hate, leave the list. and not more than 14 minutes later, the same person wrote: (OK, he who has no arguments starts to attack persons, a well known phenomena) :-))) Wolfgang Uhlig
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 22/05/02 at 14:28 Dave wrote: The part that they should contribute are the changes necessary to have this support as an external module, AND THAT'S IT. So who develops the kernel? That is a good question. It is really a cooperative effort, and the key to keeping it that way is finding a balance between the authority of the registrar and the contributors. The registrar has the final word on what goes in and what stays out, but this is balanced by the fact that he can only add what he is given in the form of contributions. In addition, it is reasonable to expect that the registrar will get feedback from people who get the new official core releases, and may consult others about his decisions, so that's another way his decisions can be influenced. This is why I mentioned that some reference to a set of guidelines will have to appear in the licence, the above needs to be formalized. It seems to me that one major concern is about how reasonable the registrar will be. The fact of the matter is, no regulations can guarantee a reasonable registrar - you can only implement a 'security measure' in the licence. One way you can do this is implicitly: if the registrar is unreasonable, the probability of someone sufficiently modifying or completely rewriting the OS using the source as a reference, to 'free' it from the constraints of the licence, and doing whatever they want with it, becomes higher. This possibility may not be such a bad thing (and it is extremely difficult to do anything against it anyway - with or without available source, availability of the source just makes it easyer. Another way is to do it explicitly: for instance, having someone/body that can veto the registrar's decision. If you want to expand that concept further, you can appoint a board of 'consultants', which then begs to define under which circumstances one can become a member, or stop being a member, etc (after all you have to guarantee that the board is reasonable too) - and you are well into red tape already. The reality of the matter is that the registrar is going to consult other people, and is more likely to consult some people than others. For one, the author of a contribution will be consulted if the contribution is unclear in some of it's elements. Then, people like TT, Jochen Merz, Marcel Kilgus, Joachim Van Der Auwera to name a few, are likely to have stronger voices than others. It would be very difficult to formalise a board of consultants right now, but effectively, some people are just that - people who are/were 'closer' to TT than others. The best you could do is to 'invite' a starter set of people and have that starter board vote in other members - and you would then have to include a possibility for a member to resign or be voted out. After that you get into conflict-of-interest issues with people who are developers and distributors, and defining wether it really is a conflict of interest or not, etc. The other way is sort of retroactive - through peer review, i.e. feedback. Anyone who gets the source can review all the inclusions, and provide feedback about them. It would even be possible to include, with the authors permission, contributions that are in the process of being decided about or even rejected, in a distribution, or even separately. This is really implied as, again, no part of the OS is 'the last word' and that includes contributios. As they say, there is always one last bug somewhere. This has repercussions to the notion of support as well. The registrar has to keep a trace on who contributed what. A contribution where no support (guaratees of absolute functionality, usage in life support systems, etc, etc) is intended or implied, is entirely possible. It would be up to the registrar to decide about this. Wether there is a board of consultants that gets to see this and can influence the registrar before the fact of inclusion, or it's negative feedback that gets it excluded (assuming it influences the registrar) is something to put in the guideline document mentioned above. Under the licence, nothing prevents anyone from rewriting the whole thing based on the source, and then doing anything you please with it. As long as you don't submit it to the registrar and it's not added to the official release, it is not covered by the licence. Aye. And if I send 100 Euros to TT, I can get SMSQ, mod it any way I see fit, and sell those new versions under the first sale doctrine, outside of the license, as they're licensed copies. Can of worms. :/ This is something that is ONLY up to TT. Wether he has surrendered rights to further licence SMSQ or not is something that has not been mentioned so far. This certainly needs qualification in the licence. My guess at this point would be that TT himself would have to work under this licence as well. It may give him the right to licence the current SMSQ 'snapshot' elsewhere, but it should not give him the right to suddenly proclaim something else the
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 11:18:26AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: May I remind everyone that by gaining access to the source, you will essentially be able to use code that someone somewhere has paid for to be written, essentially for free. It logically follows that any contribution added to the official distribution must also be free. That is the way I personally see it. than why do say in another email that you consider paying developpers royalties? I can't follow your logic. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:18:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 21 May 2002, at 23:22, Richard Zidlicky wrote: this is reasonable - but it makes it even more clear that the license has a problem. Someone buys HW with SMSQ included, his vendor/original reseller goes out of business and now what. The user can't even get the free SMSQ upgrades for his machine. Well isn't that normal? it is absolutely not normal. In a normal world technically advanced users would be allowed to help those less technically capable by providing the binaries. You are really arrogant here, this is the best way to convince remaining users that they will get better support when they choose one of the many alternative OS. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is the reality of our world. If you buy a product from someone who no longer exists, tough luck. Nope. If Mandrake or Redhat goes bankrupt the user has all possibilities to donwload binary and source packages from elsewhere. Notably, noone of the packages those vendors distribute in their standard distribution has such ridiculous restrictions as to require an official reseller or prohibit distribution of the binaries. Likewise, who wouls take care of a hardware problem, if tour reseller went poof? The situation for the software isn't different in that respect. oh yes, it is *very much* different. If my HW goes poof I am free to go to an electrician around the corner and ask him to repair the HW.. I may be more or less lucky. However if my SMSQ is broken and I would go to the next IT consulting shop in Bamberg and pay them for compiling a SMSQ binary they would be acting illegaly if they would distribute the binary to me. Yes, I know I could also pay them to become official resellers of SMSQ but it is my money so I may not want this. Likewise anyone who would do me the favour of compiling SMSQ for free would do it illegally in your opinion? Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:18:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 21 May 2002, at 23:38, Jeremy Taffel wrote: Because instead of answering in a civil an unemotional way you get provoked into escalating the flame wars, and often don't address the legitimate (in their minds) concerns of some of those that ry to debate this. What kind of reaction do you expect when I'l being called a racketeer? (not by you!) do you really think I called you a racketeer? If that is your impression than I am sorry but I don't think I have written this and I will of course clarify it in more detail if you wish. (At least I'm not aware of any major bug in SMSQ/E as it stands now - and please peole, I'm talking about bugs, not missing features!). there are a few, to the point that the OS is almost unusable in some situations. I was making a serious point and received an unwaranted (in my opinion) sarcastic glib response. This really is not necessary. I didn't mean to offend you. The reply wasn't meant to be sarcastic, but reflects what I understood from your posting. However, the problem remains: How do you implement any kind of bugfix scheme in something like SMSQ/E if it becomes entirely free? Then there is no legal relationship whatsoever. Linux also works without any legal relationship. Considering how many features it has over SMSQ it works quite well. However, many users require support. Hence the restriction on distributing the binaries. wrong answer to the problem. If users require support sell them support contracts. Should be actually much more lucrative for the now resellers. (snip) UQLX is distributed as source, and in my experience most if not all Linux users are familiar with make-files. So lets see.. provided the developer provides the necessary compiler/cross-compiler and makefile(s) for the platform, he can freely distribute it as a set of source files. Sounds like open source to me. Only leaves the problem of how to get you to accept it into an official version (don't flame -see later comments). See above - if they can compile it, then they are probably sufficiently advanced to tinker with the system. There is ABSOLUTELY no problem in distributing the source code in this way - the restriction lies in the distribution of the binaries. there is a *big* problem if I am supposed to pay 10 Euro pp for each user I wish to supply with sources. Have I misunderstood that part of the license? That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? But what's to stop you? Nothing. But, again, I don't see why one should suddenly change a licence that we have had so much trouble in setting up in the first place. That would only lead to outcries and rejections sure it would. Merely the possibility that it could happen is enough to turn me away. I don't know what other reassurances than those I have (vainly, it seems) tried to give here in the past I could still give you. I cannot, and will not, guarantee that nothing will never change, to do so would be absurd. I can only state that I still intend to make sure that every platform on which SMSQ/E runs now will continue to have up to date sources (and this binaries). ok, than add this as a preamble or something into the license. Otherwise there is nothing in the license that would suggest this, quite on the contrary the license leaves a few dangerous holes in that direction. I thus see it as my main work to try to make sure that this doesn't happen. ALL OF THE REST, including this debate about the licence, is, to my mind, pretty much secondary - but it does show how deep the feelings run, and how difficult my job will be made because of them. it is because one of the camps apparently dictated the licence entirely to their liking and you aren't very open about it. Ban the possibility of added roaylty payments or special agreements, add the comitment not to lock out platforms, remove the useless restrictions about source and binary distribution and things will look completely different. As to acting in an inclusive manner, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do yo mean that I will try to include all proposed changes into SMSQ/E? YOU BET I WILL. I can go on record here for that. But, to be quite honest, I must also state something that will probably make Richard howl with dispair: I don't believe that I will get many contributions. saddly I am afraid you migt be right, unless you will clarify the licence to be acceptable to more people. I also belive that most contributions I will get will be from MArkus Kingus, who has a record of supporting, at least, QPC, and also SMSQ/E. I WOULD LIKE TO BE PROVED WRONG! Oh boy, how I would like to be proved wrong. Bit I have had, until now, not one single suggestion of what anybody would actually attempt to change (not what they would like to see changed, but what they would
Re: [ql-users] disagreement
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 07:34:55PM +0200, Wolfgang Uhlig wrote: On 22.05.2002 14:47:27, Richard Zidlicky wrote: Roy you are playing with fire. Everyone who goes into discussion with P. or C. Graf, is playing with fire! And I know what I'm talking about! You might consider beeing more careful, if the substance of your disagreement with Peter ever goes public it might be not very favourable for you. A threat remains a threat, even if packed in make-believe friendly words, Richard. What is it that you are crying for all these last weeks? I have learnt throughout the last years that P. and C. Graf have an unappeasable envy of Marcel Kilgus and attack and threaten everyone who - in their paranoid minds - sympathizes with him. Even if it was only from business aspects, the means they use, are far beyond from how healthy people discuss or even argue with each other. But you, what is your interest? Why are you so mistrusting, who in the QL-community has really cheated you so much that this is necessary? I am only a normal BASIC-programmer and still a convinced QL-fan. As far as I can understand the license, it could bring advantages and progress to all of us. Why is it that you only and purely see what could be wrong? Who are all those commercial developpers you always mention? Thus people who really can cope with the code of SMSQ? I only know very very few and they cannot even earn enough money with it to pay the visits of QL-shows! So, earnestly, what is this all about??? fine, try to fuel the fire if you have fun from it. Richard
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Roy you are playing with fire. You might consider beeing more careful, if the substance of your disagreement with Peter ever goes public it might be not very favourable for you. No I am not playing with fire at all. I refused point blank to pay Peter some money I owed him. I agreed that I owed it to him and I refused to pay him. On the face of it this looks pretty bad doesn't it ? But then you only know what Peter chooses to tell you. After many attempts to get Peter to face up to some kind of support for his product when Tony Firshman had over half the boards not working and customers who had paid for them and did not have them I decided to refuse payment until he sorted it out. We went to Eindhoven to meet him to talk about it and show him some non working boards. He spent the entire show nuzzling up to TT and did not address the problem. We made him take the boards with him so we could find out about the problem. He took them and 18 months later he had made a few comments about a few parts which were not very good but these were not necessarily the root of the problem. We have found since that a lot of the problems were down to faulty video ram which he supplied. I wanted to use new parts. They would have cost more but the chance of problems would have been reduced. He said that, if I raised the price of the product to cover the cost of new, instead of second hand parts, he would raise his license fee. Tony and I agreed to take only 30 pounds per board as a profit. Peter took 250 DM (at the time 100 pounds). What price free software now ? I do have an ongoing dispute with Peter because, when I closed my shop, I was practically bankrupt. I have struggled to keep Q Branch going and to support the users. I told Peter that I would pay him the money I owed him because I was quitting the Q 40 and accepting the loss I had made on it but he had to wait until I had fulfilled my obligation to the general users and I gave him a date on which I would do that. I was a little late in the payment but I paid him most of what he was owed. There was a small matter of 1200 Dm outstanding at the time which he admitted to me in a letter. Part of the payment was to be the delivery of three working Q40s. At the time he still had the three boards and processors. When he took delivery of the three boards one did not work he just sent it back and accused me of trying to cheat him. I had never seen these three boards they came directly from Tony Firshman himself and were working when they were sent out. He returned the board and sent an email offering me to pay him 1200 to close the affair. This was timed neatly to expire before I came back from the US show. By the time I had read the email he had sued me for much more than he said I owed him. He won the case because I, incompetently, misread the date on the letter giving the court hearing date and trusting made an offer to mediate without a hearing which was ignored. I have seen many emails Peter has sent to other people in which has threatened many things. At the recent Manchester show none of the traders would talk to him and the feeling was so bad that he pulled out of the planned meal. I have no objection to this being out in the open. I have kept it quiet because I felt it would not be good for the QL scene for these matters to be aired in public but don't try to threaten me because it just won't work. I stand by the statement I made before. The general run of traders do not trust Peter because we have had a first hand experience of his behaviour. Even recently he has stated, when Tony Firshman offered to supply some parts to DD, that he did not want any of Roy's defective parts. Funny that. Tony Bought all of the parts for the Q40 except those supplied by Peter himself and some of the SIMMs which I bought. Peter parts were the most defective including EPROMS that would not program, one defective processor, two low speed processor (which we never asked for but were charged for) and very shoddily recycled video ram which has caused many of the problems we have had. Next time you open your mouth try to find out a few facts. If you don't want to believe me ask Jochen Merz, ask Tony Firshman. Certainly we should try at any cost to keep this matter out of *this* discussion. No we should not. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Claus Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Wed, 22 May 2002 01:06:31 +0100 Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Roy Wood wrote: CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ??? Note that I said I 'was' in favour. Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. I seriously thought you were interested in a solution. I'm sure all Q40 and Q60 users will appreciate your helpful attitude. OH I am interested in a solution and I may also have misunderstood the nature of your intentions but, owing to your previous actions, many people now do not trust you. I had thought that, because of our ongoing disagreement, it was just me but it seems evident that it is not. You continually present two faces to the world. One that appears on this list as helpful and smiley and one that appears in private emails (and I have seen the ones you have sent to others) which are at best belligerent and at worst blackmail. This has made many of the people whose opinions are courted on these matters hostile to you. Maybe this is a misunderstanding of your nature. I don't know. As I said. I was not opposed to your suggestion until the downside was pointed out to me. -- Roy Wood Come to your senses, Roy! This is not your list and you are not allowed to repeatedly throw dirt on others in public. If you cannot make a reasonable point, shut up. Telling lies and slander about a person is not how a discussion is held. If you are not able to suppress your hate, leave the list. I se no hate in this. I have just said what has always been said by many others behind your back. Your brother has offended a good many people in the past few years and in the end every boomerang comes back. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Zidlicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 12:18:57AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: No we won't. Look. No one has to pay for SMSQ/E twice. If you have a copy of SMSQ/E for your platform then upgrades are free. I feel that many of you think that the rule that binaries should not be distributed for free applies to upgrades. As far as Jochen and I see it does not. Upgrades are always available and always free if the version number does not change (i.e. the bit before the '.'. I cannot see this happening) lack of foresight? We are at version 2.98 now, the sources Wolfgang received are already different from 2.98 so they would have to be called 2.99 if they were released as a version. So the next bugfix after that will cause version 3.00 to be released? Many programs expect the version to be a plain long word so you can't easilly call it 2.99a or something like that. I would suggest the first version released under this licence be called v3.0 and be assigned as a free upgrade from all previous versions. TT had not intended to got v3.00 until some things had been added to the system but it would give us more room to manoeuvre. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
[ql-users] MAILING LIST CHANGE
Title: MAILING LIST CHANGE I am now in the process of moving the mailing list to its new Home. I will be subscribing everyone currently on the list to the new list then unsubscribing everyone from the old mailing list. As part of this process you should receive a message detailing the new address how to send messages to the new list. If you donot receive this message or have any problems please contact me. May I remind everyone to keep this list free from personal attacks, please use direct emails if this is warranted. Bruce Nicholls [EMAIL PROTECTED]
