Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 11:08:08PM +, Roy Wood wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes BIG SNIP I DO believe though that potential developers should be able to distribute their builds of SMSQ/E for free if they choose so. (Emphasis on free) because if they do charge something for it, the rights should be given to the copyright holder/manager. The reason that this was vetoed at the meeting was that the whole purpose of the registrar was to make sure that versions of the binaries would be compatible with most systems. For instance the inclusion of the COPYBACK_CACHE into SMSQ/E for the Q40/Q60 made it unable to run ProWesS with any degree of stability. Incidentally a version 2.98(patched) of SMSQ/E is being distributed with current versions of the Q40/Q60. this is a very nice example why you don't want to include such fixes into the official version without proper testing. The patch itself was a very simple bugfix, surely the way it was originally intended by TT but it has considerable effects: - MMU is enabled, apparently it was previously mostly disabled - full caching is configured. It is pretty obvious that this may break some software or even expose other bugs in SMSQ. ... has anyone had ProWesS running properly on this version and, if they have, why will it not run on my Q40 without a massive crash ? Wolfgang confirmed at Eindhoven that this will not work with his Q60 so what is the situation here? It is most likely not an SMSQ issue at all, most crashes are caused by some application problem. You can turn off the caches and see if it works. Bye Richard
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 1:44, Phoebus Dokos wrote: (hmmm civilised and Greek at the same sentence :-) Ok, say we'll admit that Greece is the cradle of modern civilisation... 2. There are (as Dave and me among others) some differences between what you originally said and your clarifications UNLESS I didn't understand you completely I have no problem with not being clear from time to time. That's why the need to clarify. 3. The details of distribution esp. to cover people with no other means of getting the software using IRCs instead of money (if they CANNOT get the IRCs in the first place), need to be cleared up a little bit. (..)- Please Wolfgang, find some better way to do this. I am willing to help in this aspect (as you can see from my other emails). I have had IRCs from people in the US... I suggested IRCs because that is a convenient way of paying for the postage. I will NEVER refuse to send the sources to somebody who genuinely can't send me IRCs. 4. Contradictions between the text you originally submitted and your clarifications must be eliminated :-) I agree. I just don't find that many :-). 5. ESPECIALLY for hardware designers, I think that a provision should be made so they will be able to distribute some form of binaries (especially in ROMS) to avoid the problems vividly illustrated in QL-Developers by Peter (You do read that list don't you?). No, I'm sorry, I don't. If I remember correctly, at the time that list was created, there was some talk of being vetted to be allowed in (I might have this wrong), so I never bothered. Could you ask Peter (or Claus) to copy their mesages to this list - or could you copy the relevant messages to this list? In any case we cannot argue that this isn't one of the most significant developments in the QL just shy of the announcement of Colour drivers! That we all agrre on. On second thought, that we (most of us) agree on... It's absolutely no problem voicing your opinions/concerns. - on the contrary - The only thing is that I won't be replying right now to each message. I prefer to have a bundle of questions/opinions that I can treat all at once AFTER THE EASTER WEEKEND (I'm taking a few days off and going to London). Please, let me have this respite... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 08:04 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: On 27 Mar 2002, at 1:44, Phoebus Dokos wrote: (hmmm civilised and Greek at the same sentence :-) Ok, say we'll admit that Greece is the cradle of modern civilisation... Ha! that was more than 2500 years ago... all we do now is party (and we're really good at it :-) 2. There are (as Dave and me among others) some differences between what you originally said and your clarifications UNLESS I didn't understand you completely I have no problem with not being clear from time to time. That's why the need to clarify. Okay... just look at the end of this email I have had IRCs from people in the US... I suggested IRCs because that is a convenient way of paying for the postage. I will NEVER refuse to send the sources to somebody who genuinely can't send me IRCs. Oh I understand that but it's useful to be clear from the get go to avoid ANY misunderstandings (and that's why having this conversation now, before the sources become available is very constructive :-) I agree. I just don't find that many :-). Hehe 5. ESPECIALLY for hardware designers, I think that a provision should be made so they will be able to distribute some form of binaries (especially in ROMS) to avoid the problems vividly illustrated in QL-Developers by Peter (You do read that list don't you?). No, I'm sorry, I don't. If I remember correctly, at the time that list was created, there was some talk of being vetted to be allowed in (I might have this wrong), so I never bothered. I don't remember that being the case ever... Ql-developers is always open for anyone to join... nonetheless I already forwarded you Peter's message... (It's along the lines of Dave's objections though, only a little less confusing ;-))) (Sorry Dave :-D) Could you ask Peter (or Claus) to copy their mesages to this list - or could you copy the relevant messages to this list? See above. In any case we cannot argue that this isn't one of the most significant developments in the QL just shy of the announcement of Colour drivers! That we all agrre on. On second thought, that we (most of us) agree on... It's absolutely no problem voicing your opinions/concerns. - on the contrary - The only thing is that I won't be replying right now to each message. I prefer to have a bundle of questions/opinions that I can treat all at once AFTER THE EASTER WEEKEND (I'm taking a few days off and going to London). Oh agreed :-) In any case it would be easier for you to get the median of all the dissenting opinions and either clarify the official route chosen or adjust the license :-)) Don't forget to have a good time in London :-) Okay below find the main points of the SMSQ/E sources license/distribution scheme as I understood it... Please do correct me (and others) if there are any mistakes :-) 1. The copyright for SMSQ/E is retained by Tony Tebby (Nothing weird here, just like Linux) 1. There are (currently) two official distributors of LICENSED binaries and ONLY official Distributors can SELL SMSQ/E. 2. The registrar (and only the registrar) is making available the SMSQ/E sources to anyone that wants them free of charge, provided that the person sends return postage in form of IRCs and Media for the sources to be put on. (See also No. 7 for the contradiction) 3. Any modifications CANNOT be publicised until approved by the registrar 4. Any modifications/new code that is approved and entered in the source loses it's copyright from its author and derives the overall copyright status of SMSQ/E. (In that aspect, modifications from 3rd parties on the modifications from the 2nd party does not need to include the writer's copyright message/license but only the SMSQ/E license) 5. ANYONE CAN create a distribution for his own use from the sources but cannot give it away to no one free of charge or otherwise 6. It is STRICTLY prohibited for anyone to make the sources available on the internet (unless given specific permission to do so by the registrar or the copyright holder) 7. It is NOT STRICTLY prohibited (but in any case requires prior approval) for a PD library/Shareware catalog/Individual to give away the SMSQ/E sources provided no fee is charged (same as no. 2) Okay that is it Please clarify If I got them right or wrong :-) If No. 7 is right and No. 2 is not, then I do volunteer to distribute the sources in the US, free of charge :-) as well Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 09:24:13AM -0500, Phoebus Dokos wrote: 1. The copyright for SMSQ/E is retained by Tony Tebby (Nothing weird here, just like Linux) 1. There are (currently) two official distributors of LICENSED binaries and ONLY official Distributors can SELL SMSQ/E. 2. The registrar (and only the registrar) is making available the SMSQ/E sources to anyone that wants them free of charge, provided that the person sends return postage in form of IRCs and Media for the sources to be put on. (See also No. 7 for the contradiction) 3. Any modifications CANNOT be publicised until approved by the registrar 4. Any modifications/new code that is approved and entered in the source loses it's copyright from its author and derives the overall copyright status of SMSQ/E. (In that aspect, modifications from 3rd parties on the modifications from the 2nd party does not need to include the writer's copyright message/license but only the SMSQ/E license) 5. ANYONE CAN create a distribution for his own use from the sources but cannot give it away to no one free of charge or otherwise 6. It is STRICTLY prohibited for anyone to make the sources available on the internet (unless given specific permission to do so by the registrar or the copyright holder) 7. It is NOT STRICTLY prohibited (but in any case requires prior approval) for a PD library/Shareware catalog/Individual to give away the SMSQ/E sources provided no fee is charged (same as no. 2) Okay that is it Please clarify If I got them right or wrong :-) where the hell did you get all this bullshit from, what are you smoking today? Bye Richard
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 09:33 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: snip where the hell did you get all this bullshit from, what are you smoking today? Bye Richard Richard I want to believe you didn't mean what I understood... however I am not going to answer. Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 10:01 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: At 09:33 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: snip where the hell did you get all this bullshit from, what are you smoking today? Bye Richard Richard I want to believe you didn't mean what I understood... however I am not going to answer. Phoebus You know what... forget it... on second thought I am really pd off now... so here goes First of all if you were paying ANY attention whatsoever you would read that these were the point as I (and only I) understood them... and for which I asked a confirmation or not and to where I was mistaken in their understanding... To this effect, you could politely say that I was wrong and explain why... Instead you chose to insult me... well FYI I don't allow my mother to speak to me like that let alone anybody else... at least not in public. You have a problem with what I believe? Take it up to me PERSONALLY... unless of course you want a swear war that I can guarantee you, you'll lose... We Greeks have more swear words than the total of European languages COMBINED... Do you want to try me? As to what I am smoking that's none of your damn business isn't it? Also if by your bull word you mean that I am an idiot, it maybe so, but I'll be damned if I let anybody say that to me. Now if you have any CONSTRUCTIVE points to make regarding MY understanding of the new SMSQ/E license, please do offer them, if you don't, just take a shovel and a bucket and go play in your sandbox in the corner. This concludes my rant... You happy now Richard? Phoebus
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Oh boy. It is little Jimmy's birthday party. All his little friends are there. Little Jimmy's dad instructs (with naive futility) the children to play nicely with the new toys [so adults can have a few beers in peace]. But (surprise surprise) the children are unable to play nicely. Instead they do nothing but squabble over who is in charge of the toys and what games to play. Eventually their squabbling becomes so noisy that little Jimmy's dad storms over and picks up all the new toys saying I told you to play nicely, now none of you can have the toys! Might be an idea to get the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides to take the toys away again. Just an idea. -Original Message- From: phoebus Sent: 27 March 2002 16:26 To: ql-users Cc: phoebus Subject: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms At 10:01 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: At 09:33 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: snip where the hell did you get all this bullshit from, what are you smoking today? Bye Richard Richard I want to believe you didn't mean what I understood... however I am not going to answer. Phoebus You know what... forget it... on second thought I am really pd off now... so here goes First of all if you were paying ANY attention whatsoever you would read that these were the point as I (and only I) understood them... and for which I asked a confirmation or not and to where I was mistaken in their understanding... To this effect, you could politely say that I was wrong and explain why... Instead you chose to insult me... well FYI I don't allow my mother to speak to me like that let alone anybody else... at least not in public. You have a problem with what I believe? Take it up to me PERSONALLY... unless of course you want a swear war that I can guarantee you, you'll lose... We Greeks have more swear words than the total of European languages COMBINED... Do you want to try me? As to what I am smoking that's none of your damn business isn't it? Also if by your bull word you mean that I am an idiot, it maybe so, but I'll be damned if I let anybody say that to me. Now if you have any CONSTRUCTIVE points to make regarding MY understanding of the new SMSQ/E license, please do offer them, if you don't, just take a shovel and a bucket and go play in your sandbox in the corner. This concludes my rant... You happy now Richard? Phoebus Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments.
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 11:56 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: Oh boy. It is little Jimmy's birthday party. All his little friends are there. Little Jimmy's dad instructs (with naive futility) the children to play nicely with the new toys [so adults can have a few beers in peace]. But (surprise surprise) the children are unable to play nicely. Instead they do nothing but squabble over who is in charge of the toys and what games to play. Eventually their squabbling becomes so noisy that little Jimmy's dad storms over and picks up all the new toys saying I told you to play nicely, now none of you can have the toys! Might be an idea to get the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides to take the toys away again. Just an idea. You know what Ian, maybe you're totally right on this... In any case I apologize to the list for the previous rant, but as you know EVERYONE has his limits. I'm going to just put this matter behind me now anyway... Phoebus
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
You know what Ian, maybe you're totally right on this... In any case I apologize to the list for the previous rant, but as you know EVERYONE has his limits. I'm going to just put this matter behind me now anyway... Phoebus Phoebus, I found your emails on this subject important and helpful. The subject is a bit boring but important to QL users so we can figure out where we are at. Richard must be having a bad day and I would not waste any more time on that. The arrangement that has been set up is not standard by any means and some of the details are unclear. TT is not Linus by a long shot and we get all information second or third hand. Still I agree with you that this is a very encouraging event. I appreciate all the effort being made to make it work. -- Bill
Re: [ql-users] QPC 1.x and Win ME
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phoebus Dokos) wrote: --===559836A3=== Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-64022A6A; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi all, speaking of WinME, if anyone needs to make WinME boot in DOS in order to use QPC 1.x (I don't see why but you never know sometimes), contact me so I can send you a nice hack that will remove the #$@$@#$@ DOS hide feature of Windows. (This can help you also run BeOS Personal and dos-based linux loaders (good for people installing Linux on VFAT drives in order to run qdos-gcc or uQLx among other things) Phoebus --===559836A3===-- Well done Phoebus, Does this also work with XP? I do not have a copy at the moment, I did have an evaluation copy but it has died and I am thinking about it. TIA Regards, Peter Fox
Re: [ql-users] QPC 1.x and Win ME
At 01:44 ìì 27/3/2002, you wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phoebus Dokos) wrote: --===559836A3=== Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-64022A6A; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi all, speaking of WinME, if anyone needs to make WinME boot in DOS in order to use QPC 1.x (I don't see why but you never know sometimes), contact me so I can send you a nice hack that will remove the #$@$@#$@ DOS hide feature of Windows. (This can help you also run BeOS Personal and dos-based linux loaders (good for people installing Linux on VFAT drives in order to run qdos-gcc or uQLx among other things) Phoebus --===559836A3===-- Well done Phoebus, Does this also work with XP? I do not have a copy at the moment, I did have an evaluation copy but it has died and I am thinking about it. No that won't work with XP as XP is based on NT and not DOS (AFAIK that is). Not to mention that I even if it is based on DOS (WinXP Home that is since I'm 100% sure that the pro IS NT) I don't think that it will allow you to install QPC 1's protection The hack is WinME specific. Did you get it from Peter Tillier? (Or do you want it?) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] QPC 1.x and Win ME
Phoebus Dokos wrote: No that won't work with XP as XP is based on NT and not DOS (AFAIK that is). Not to mention that I even if it is based on DOS (WinXP Home that is since I'm 100% sure that the pro IS NT) I don't think that it will allow you to install QPC 1's protection The protection is long gone. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 at 16:56:26, wrote: (ref: Hb5f1240e71f.1017248184.ln4p1327.ldn.swissbank.com@MHS) Oh boy. It is little Jimmy's birthday party. All his little friends are there. Little Jimmy's dad instructs (with naive futility) the children to play nicely with the new toys [so adults can have a few beers in peace]. But (surprise surprise) the children are unable to play nicely. Instead they do nothing but squabble over who is in charge of the toys and what games to play. Eventually their squabbling becomes so noisy that little Jimmy's dad storms over and picks up all the new toys saying I told you to play nicely, now none of you can have the toys! Might be an idea to get the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides to take the toys away again. Just an idea. (8-)# I think we all ought to go and read William Golding's 'Lord of the Flies' - very much on the same lines as Ian's comment. Calm down folks, please. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tonysurname,demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] QPC 1.x and Win ME
Peter Fox wrote: Does this also work with XP? I do not have a copy at the moment, I did have an evaluation copy but it has died and I am thinking about it. XP does not have DOS so there is nothing to hide. Marcel
Re: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 4:56 PM Subject: RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms Oh boy. It is little Jimmy's birthday party. All his little friends are there. Little Jimmy's dad instructs (with naive futility) the children to play nicely with the new toys [so adults can have a few beers in peace]. But (surprise surprise) the children are unable to play nicely. Instead they do nothing but squabble over who is in charge of the toys and what games to play. Eventually their squabbling becomes so noisy that little Jimmy's dad storms over and picks up all the new toys saying I told you to play nicely, now none of you can have the toys! Might be an idea to get the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides to take the toys away again. Just an idea. and all the other children looking on decide they would rather be at some other party All the best - Bill ( a user -hopefully not a loser )
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: 1. The copyright for SMSQ/E is retained by Tony Tebby (Nothing weird here, just like Linux) 1. There are (currently) two official distributors of LICENSED binaries and ONLY official Distributors can SELL SMSQ/E. 2. The registrar (and only the registrar) is making available the SMSQ/E sources to anyone that wants them free of charge, provided that the person sends return postage in form of IRCs and Media for the sources to be put on. (See also No. 7 for the contradiction) 3. Any modifications CANNOT be publicised until approved by the registrar 4. Any modifications/new code that is approved and entered in the source loses it's copyright from its author and derives the overall copyright status of SMSQ/E. (In that aspect, modifications from 3rd parties on the modifications from the 2nd party does not need to include the writer's copyright message/license but only the SMSQ/E license) 5. ANYONE CAN create a distribution for his own use from the sources but cannot give it away to no one free of charge or otherwise 6. It is STRICTLY prohibited for anyone to make the sources available on the internet (unless given specific permission to do so by the registrar or the copyright holder) 7. It is NOT STRICTLY prohibited (but in any case requires prior approval) for a PD library/Shareware catalog/Individual to give away the SMSQ/E sources provided no fee is charged (same as no. 2) Let me make that a lot simpler... There are two ways to get SMSQ: 1. For free. Get the source, pay NOTHING, and compile it yourself. 2. Pay an official reseller for the executable. There are two ways to give SMSQ: 1. For free, accepting no payment, you may distribute the source. 2. Be an official reseller, accept payment, and pay the required license fee up the chain to TT. There are two ways to add code to SMSQ: 1. Submit them to the maintainer, who will examine them for compatibility and compliance and accept or reject them. 2. Distribute them as source only. There are two ways to make money from SMSQ: 1. Be Tony Tebby. 2. ... And as a final comment... Mr Tony Tebby, Hi, I'm a user. I first used QDOS in 1984, and I think it's great. I really appreciate that you would like to open up SMSQ to a wider programming audience and I like the way you're handling it, on the whole. However, the restriction on distributing executables, even for extremely limited testing purposes and the submission requirement being too all-encompassing, may be a little too broad and need some refinement. I do not wish to reduce the chance of this happening, and I realise SMSQ is your child, but it's a big world out there, and for any child to grow up it must be exposed to some risks. It's part of development (no pun intended!) So please, let us have a developer's license to encourage people to make SMSQ applicable to a wider audience and to really help it grow. It doesn't harm you, and it would certainly help you. In my humble opinion, Dave Your happy user.
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:08:08 + Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes BIG SNIP I DO believe though that potential developers should be able to distribute their builds of SMSQ/E for free if they choose so. (Emphasis on free) because if they do charge something for it, the rights should be given to the copyright holder/manager. The reason that this was vetoed at the meeting was that the whole purpose of the registrar was to make sure that versions of the binaries would be compatible with most systems. For instance the inclusion of the COPYBACK_CACHE into SMSQ/E for the Q40/Q60 made it unable to run ProWesS with any degree of stability. It is possible. DD Systems showed you that at the show. Switch off cache. Start ProWesS. Switch on cache. Voila! Secondly: The problem you describe here is not an OS problem, but an application program problem. Incidentally a version 2.98(patched) of SMSQ/E is being distributed with current versions of the Q40/Q60. I am sure that they have the legal right to sell this and are paying royalties to TT but has anyone had ProWesS running properly on this version and, if they have, why will it not run on my Q40 without a massive crash ? Wolfgang confirmed at Eindhoven that this will not work with his Q60 so what is the situation here? -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Dexter wrote: So please, let us have a developer's license to encourage people to make SMSQ applicable to a wider audience and to really help it grow. It doesn't harm you, and it would certainly help you. - Tony does not read the list. - Tony did not do the licence. He said whatever sensible you'll come up with at Eindhoven is fine with me. Apart from that I have long ago lost the overview over the whole discussion and don't really have the time to catch up. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Dexter wrote: So please, let us have a developer's license to encourage people to make SMSQ applicable to a wider audience and to really help it grow. It doesn't harm you, and it would certainly help you. - Tony does not read the list. That seemed kinda obvious... - Tony did not do the licence. He said whatever sensible you'll come up with at Eindhoven is fine with me. That was not obvious. Now I know that, I am very disappointed. Apart from that I have long ago lost the overview over the whole discussion and don't really have the time to catch up. Let me summarise: Most people are grateful to TT for allowing this option. We've had the proposed license explained to us, and it's mostly Really Good. A couple of us are a bit put out, or rather, we would be put out, by the restrictions to the development cycle that the license puts on us. The problem is that there is no way to give someone an executable of SMSQ for testing (even if they're already a licensed user) unless and until that executable and source have been submitted to the maintainer, accepted into the main code tree, distributed to a reseller, and ordered commercially from that reseller. Every time you submit something, you have to buy it back. Not to mention that's before you can even do any testing with third parties. If you're doing something novel, no matter how limited or unrelated to the at-large userbase, if the maintainer doesn't accept it, you can't use it, unless you give your clients the source, and make them compile it themselves. That may not be what is intended, but that is what the license says. Completely ridiculous. Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
I don't know if everyone is ignoring me, but I made a few points about the SMSQ/E statement that can make all of the discussions going on a mute point. The statement says that no one can SELL SMSQ/E except for the distributers. It made no mention of any person giving a SMSQ/E binary to any other person (except for PD libraries). Now, we can leave the statement as is and freely pass around binaries, much to the consternation of TT and the registrar, or the statement can be fixed to either block or control personal distribution of the binaries. I understand the spirit of the statement, but the wording is very bad and it is the wording that the law will follow. If I tell my daughters they can't watch TV in the front room, I can't yell at them for watching TV in their room. I may have thought they can't watch TV at all but only said can't watch TV in the front room. There is a difference. Tim Swenson ___ Free Domain Name Registration with Web Hosting at Lanset Communications. 56k Dialup, Web Design, and Colocation at http://www.lanset.net
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Dexter wrote: - Tony did not do the licence. He said whatever sensible you'll come up with at Eindhoven is fine with me. That was not obvious. Now I know that, I am very disappointed. Why? Most people are grateful to TT for allowing this option. We've had the proposed license explained to us, and it's mostly Really Good. Fine. The problem is that there is no way to give someone an executable of SMSQ for testing (even if they're already a licensed user) unless and until that executable and source have been submitted to the maintainer, accepted into the main code tree, distributed to a reseller, and ordered commercially from that reseller. Every time you submit something, you have to buy it back. Not to mention that's before you can even do any testing with third parties. I did not write the licence but I'm one of the people who drafted the spirit of how it should be. And in my opinion giving away a modified version to somebody who already owns SMSQ/E is ok. At least for the versions Tony has the sole copyright for (all except QPC so far). In the future there might be other versions that incorporates copyrighted parts of other people (like an Aurora driver). Of course a modified version of that can't be given away to somebody who did not previously acquire the other copyrighted part. Or shorter: if the person who receives the modified binary legally owns the version the modification is based on it is ok. That may not be what is intended, but that is what the license says. If that's the case it should be changed. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
??? 27/3/2002 3:28:34 ìì, ?/? Timothy Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: I don't know if everyone is ignoring me, but I made a few points about the SMSQ/E statement that can make all of the discussions going on a mute point. I am certainly not... however there are some differences between what the original statement says and what Wolfgang clarified later and that was the whole point of me listing the key points as I understood them so I could be corrected if needed. The statement says that no one can SELL SMSQ/E except for the distributers. It made no mention of any person giving a SMSQ/E binary to any other person (except for PD libraries). Now, we can leave the statement as is and freely pass around binaries, much to the consternation of TT and the registrar, or the statement can be fixed to either block or control personal distribution of the binaries. I understand the spirit of the statement, but the wording is very bad and it is the wording that the law will follow. If I tell my daughters they can't watch TV in the front room, I can't yell at them for watching TV in their room. I may have thought they can't watch TV at all but only said can't watch TV in the front room. There is a difference. True... can't have your pie and eat it too :-) Tim Swenson ___ Free Domain Name Registration with Web Hosting at Lanset Communications. 56k Dialup, Web Design, and Colocation at http://www.lanset.net -- Phoebus R. Dokos - Quantum Leap Software Web and Graphic Design - Custom Program Solutions Tech Support - Software Localization Web: http://www.dokos-gr.net ICQ#:34196116 / SMS:+30973267887 SMS:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Timothy Swenson wrote: I don't know if everyone is ignoring me, No, not intentionally at least ;-) The statement says that no one can SELL SMSQ/E except for the distributers. It made no mention of any person giving a SMSQ/E binary to any other person (except for PD libraries). Yes, IIRC the intention was that nobody should earn something from the sources without Tony getting something out of it, too. My problem currently is that we did discuss so many possibilities at Eindhoven that I don't completely remember what we agreed on in the end... so I hope Wolfgang can clear up some matters when he comes back. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
It is possible. DD Systems showed you that at the show. Switch off cache. Start ProWesS. Switch on cache. Voila! This indicates another problem. In ProWesS during startup (and loading of each ProWesS program) the OS is called to switch caches off and back on when it is finished. So this indicates that there is a problem with that code! Joachim
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
4. Any modifications/new code that is approved and entered in the source loses it's copyright from its author and derives the overall copyright status of SMSQ/E. (In that aspect, modifications from 3rd parties on the modifications from the 2nd party does not need to include the writer's copyright message/license but only the SMSQ/E license) I personally would never be prepared to transfer copyright. I would accept not being able to get a fee for the work done, but copyright should always stay with the author of the relevant piece of code! In fact, if the code would later be sold (outside the QL community) I would not accept my code being part of that if I do not get a part of the fee! Joachim
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
okay, i've stayed out of this discussion for a while, although interesting, it seems that some of the points about SMSQ/E have been missed. Can someone please send me a copy of the licence for the release of SMSQ/E sources, so I can have a look at this. 1) Is the license actually definitive, or has it yet to be signed by Tony Tebby?? Surely an agreement to amend the licence can be reached if necessary... 2) Some additions/changes to SMSQ/E can be released as add-on modules - this would overcome any problems with distribution/copyright etc as the add-on modules could be released and sold separately by the authors. 3) The rules on copyright are actually fairly tight (at least here in the UK) - the copyright for any code produced remains with the original author, unless released into the public domain. Surely (although I have not seen the terms of the licence), if someone wanted to release a new version of SMSQ/E specifically for Aurora, for example, they could put their own limits upon distribution of the code which they have written, for example, the sources should not be made public, and the binaries should only be distributed provided a specified fee is paid to that author. After all, the license agreement can only relate to the existing SMSQ/E code, not any additions made to it later by Tony Tebby or anyone else. *** FINALLY A PLEA *** Can we please stop personal attacks and arguments on this list - we should all try to work together in producing an agreement on how SMSQ/E can be developed at a later date.. Rich Mellor RWAP Software 7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR TEL: 01977 614299
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh boy. It is little Jimmy's birthday party. All his little friends are there. Little Jimmy's dad instructs (with naive futility) the children to play nicely with the new toys [so adults can have a few beers in peace]. But (surprise surprise) the children are unable to play nicely. Instead they do nothing but squabble over who is in charge of the toys and what games to play. Eventually their squabbling becomes so noisy that little Jimmy's dad storms over and picks up all the new toys saying I told you to play nicely, now none of you can have the toys! Might be an idea to get the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides to take the toys away again. Just an idea. This sadly also looks very much like the world situation. One theological description is 'original sin'. Lafe -Original Message- From: phoebus Sent: 27 March 2002 16:26 To: ql-users Cc: phoebus Subject: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms At 10:01 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: At 09:33 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote: snip where the hell did you get all this bullshit from, what are you smoking today? Bye Richard Richard I want to believe you didn't mean what I understood... however I am not going to answer. Phoebus You know what... forget it... on second thought I am really pd off now... so here goes First of all if you were paying ANY attention whatsoever you would read that these were the point as I (and only I) understood them... and for which I asked a confirmation or not and to where I was mistaken in their understanding... To this effect, you could politely say that I was wrong and explain why... Instead you chose to insult me... well FYI I don't allow my mother to speak to me like that let alone anybody else... at least not in public. You have a problem with what I believe? Take it up to me PERSONALLY... unless of course you want a swear war that I can guarantee you, you'll lose... We Greeks have more swear words than the total of European languages COMBINED... Do you want to try me? As to what I am smoking that's none of your damn business isn't it? Also if by your bull word you mean that I am an idiot, it maybe so, but I'll be damned if I let anybody say that to me. Now if you have any CONSTRUCTIVE points to make regarding MY understanding of the new SMSQ/E license, please do offer them, if you don't, just take a shovel and a bucket and go play in your sandbox in the corner. This concludes my rant... You happy now Richard? Phoebus Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments.
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Joachim Van der Auwera wrote: I personally would never be prepared to transfer copyright. I would accept not being able to get a fee for the work done, but copyright should always stay with the author of the relevant piece of code! In fact, if the code would later be sold (outside the QL community) I would not accept my code being part of that if I do not get a part of the fee! According to the Berne Convention, which regulates international copyright law, it's really simple... If you take someone else's work and modify it, the new work is a derivitive work, and the original author retains copyright. If you create something additional, which is not based on a prior work, you have copyright automatically, but you can surrender that copyright to the other of the larger work by accepting their license conditions. However, reality check, SMSQ is such a small seller that I doubt anyone would be able to justify suing even if there was a major infringement, or the lawyers would earn more than the entire income from SMSQ in even a very small lawsuit. Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Dexter wrote: That was not obvious. Now I know that, I am very disappointed. Why? Because I pictured it that TT had chosen a license structure and chosen three trusted people to execute it for him, Instead, he passed that role to someone he trusts, and that one person plus two resellers seem to have given themselves all the control... It's not fact - it's an impression. It's all about how it looks. I did not write the licence but I'm one of the people who drafted the spirit of how it should be. And in my opinion giving away a modified version to somebody who already owns SMSQ/E is ok. At least for the versions Tony has the sole copyright for (all except QPC so far). In the future there might be other versions that incorporates copyrighted parts of other people (like an Aurora driver). Of course a modified version of that can't be given away to somebody who did not previously acquire the other copyrighted part. Or shorter: if the person who receives the modified binary legally owns the version the modification is based on it is ok. That would completely remove my devil's advocate concerns. It's a very fair way of making sure the right license fees are paid by the right people at the right time. That may not be what is intended, but that is what the license says. If that's the case it should be changed. A minor rewrite of clarification or expansion would be nice. Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Dexter wrote: Because I pictured it that TT had chosen a license structure He certainly had some ideas and requirements which went into the draft, like the registrar stuff. But I haven't spoken with him personally. and chosen three trusted people to execute it for him, Instead, he passed that role to someone he trusts, and that one person plus two resellers seem to have given themselves all the control... I don't really get this sentence. But yes, he has passed the role to someone he trusts, i.e. Jochen. A minor rewrite of clarification or expansion would be nice. Let's wait for Wolfgang to return. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Let's wait for Wolfgang to return. Let me add that I am very heartened by Wolfgang's approach to these 'criticisms'. I'm trying to be as helpful and constructive as possible. If the intent is to enhance development, I would like to help remove restrictions that have a chilling effect on development. Wolfgang has listened to my comments and responded very positively. He is making a genuine effort to understand my concerns (which may or may not be shared with others, who may or may not have their own concerns too!) Frankly, this is one of the best critical discussions I've participated in - Wolfgang is showing the precise listening and diplomatic qualities I would be looking for in a maintainer/registrar. Good choice Mr Tebby :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Claus Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes SNIP It is possible. DD Systems showed you that at the show. Switch off cache. Start ProWesS. Switch on cache. Voila! Not. ProWesS will run true but printing fails randomly and LINEdesign will only print one page. After that, if you want to print two pages for instance you have to reset. Secondly: The problem you describe here is not an OS problem, but an application program problem. Joachim has stated that ProWesS will not run properly with the COPYBACK cache active. In version 2.99 of SMSQ/E for the Q 40 etc. I think you cannot turn off the cache. Either that or some other change is causing the same effect. I would like ProWesS to run with the cache turned on because it is much faster that way but I do need to have ProWesS running. For me this is the most important part of my system. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes This approach is not illegal by any means and is exactly the same as that adopted by most major software houses for other platforms - M$ included. No-one can legally sell a copy of Windoze for instance unless they are a licensed M$ distributor and these distributors pass the goods on to the shops and other outlets. That's not true even if M$ wants you to think so... Dave is absolutely right when he says that this approach is ILLEGAL totally... however for the reasons I explained to my previous email it is not illegal in our case. To further explain: If you prohibit ANYONE to sell an original version of SMSQ/E then no one would be able to sell their second-hand software for example. I would have to come to you or Jochen give you my SMSQ/E that I didn't want any more for this or the other reason and then wait until you sold it!. As you can see this is not only illegal but impractical as well :-) But that is actually the case if you click the 'accept' box in Windoze. You are not legally entitled to sell your copy of Windoze 98 on to another user even if you have stopped using it yourself. It is all there in the small print that no-one reads but every one, including the pirates, agrees to. The whole point about this is that Jochen and I were not overly concerned about the money because it is a small amount. We were concerned about having to support code we know nothing about. If someone modifies a copy of SMSQ/E and distributes it who is to say they will change the version number. When that code breaks down somewhere unforeseen by the author of the changes we may have to deal with a customer whose programs are not working as they should and we have no way to tell if the code is the one we put out or a modified copy. It could all get very messy. This whole argument has been splitting hairs and blurring what is, in fact, a very simple attempt to give you more say in what direction SMSQ/E takes whilst maintaining a stable platform. We were not aware we would have a veto in any other person becoming a reseller and we would probably not take up that option anyway. All we want to do is to ensure that the end user has the most stable version of SMSQ/E with as many features and extras as we can crowbar in. Our community is very small so adding a distributor level to the process would be unnecessary. You can become a reseller if you wish. Just contact Wolfgang and he will speak with TT on your behalf. Maybe is a good idea because the US users would have a better contact. I am here and available for that :-) Fine. Be prepared, however, to adopt the role of 'bedtime story reader' because a small minority of users seem not to want to read the manual and are happier if you read it to them over the telephone. One called me the other day to ask how to create a second QXL.WIN file on QPC2. When I told him it was on page x of the manual he quite happily said that he had put the manual away, was not at home and wanted to do it right then. Oh well in that case. Are your sitting comfortably,? Then I'll begin Once upon a time .. Hey I have no problem with providing support on this but I don't see how many sales SMSQ/E would have in the US (apart from the few upgrades). That would be just a convenience service to the community rather than a business :-) My point entirely. That is what Q Branch is. I lose money on Q Branch but I do it because I enjoy using the system, I like the people and it gives Jochen and I an excuse to meet up for a meal in a foreign country. I have done this for eight years now and Jochen has done it for far longer. If either of us did this for money we would be long gone. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
At 07:09 ìì 27/3/2002, you wrote: Great stuff! Thanks to all who brought it about, not least of all TT himself! At last the mysteries unveiled and we'll be in control of our own destiny. This could be a new beginning - or the way to dusty death. Only time will tell. Yes, the main benefit of opening up the sources would be the ability to understand how SMS does the things it does, which may or may not lead to an ability to at last write drivers for devices we couldn't before... The nitty-gritty of the license agreement has to be clarified. I cant imagine that its purpose was to be obstructive in any way to legitimate development. The intention must be to avoid turning SMSQ/E into 1) a mess 2) a goldmine for the undeserving 3) Linux/E 4) WinDOS 5) Qdos a la DP (they figured Qdos wasnt entirely compatible (!) (and it shows)) Hehe... Yes.. one of the major benefits of SMSQ/E against both Linux and Windows is that it is very concise... although for several programs out there to run, extensions are needed, this is far from the bloat both Windows (and unfortunately Linux) impose on you in order to run one simple application.. (Now if someone tells me that you can put Linux on one disk or even less... i'll respond... yes and try to run the GiMP on it! :-) (Nuff said!)... ProWesS for example can fit in under 3 Mb's (two disks) and can actually run on one... Take that Windows! Not even Win 286 could do that (4 x 1.2Mb disks iirc) IMHO the OS should be kept lean and mean, and not be bloated with everyone's pet add-ons, a la Windoze. It should be the kernel of what is required to run systems utilities, extensions and programs across a variety of different platforms. Thus PI should be in, but why Wman? Things should be in, but why Hotkeys? If these non-essential add-ons, and others yet to be written, were kept separate, each author could decide on his own policy of distribution to fit the case (and users whether they wanted them). System utilities and extensions that are generally useful across platforms and fall in with the general ethos and style could be kept together with, but separate from the SMSQ/E source tree. True but I do believe that you can still include a fully functional gui AND utilities AND APIs all included in a concise and tight code base... Platform-specific developers would see to it that SMSQ/E would load and run on their platform. Utilities to exploit specifics of that platform should be included only for that platform (as an SMSQ module) while basic tests for those facilities should be available for all platforms to make application developer's lives easier. Eg, the likes of MACHINE, PROCESSOR, HOSTOS, EMULATOR and DISP_TYPE (and their m/c equivalents) should be available across ALL SMSQ/E and Qdos-like systems so that application programs can take necessary action without having to peek and poke around the system variables and Thing lists. There are certain core functions that would benefit all platforms, eg slaving and the native file system, as well as some of the discussed improvements to PI and many more. But whos going to handle those, as they wont necessarily promote anyone's pet platform? (I hope Marcel hasnt lost heart after that nasty little attack the other day.) I do believe that a sensible discussion on what should and what shouldn't be included in v.3 of SMSQ/E must be conducted as well as a reflection on what the route to the future should be... (Maybe the PowerPC??? ;-) Many things NEED to be changed like for example the archaic file system must give way to a POSIX type one either by a direct replacement or by a third-party extension (kinda like Thierry's CD driver), but in any case two of the MOST pressing changes for the platform would be the incorporation of a set of strong graphics capabilities (steps towards which have been taken with the introduction of the colour drivers maybe a software blitter or Wolfgang's scrolling extensions are good candidates too) and the replacement of the IO mechanism with one allowing the easier development of drivers for devices block or otherwise And that leads me on to my last point, which is that there are a lot of petty jealousies and tensions in our tiny (but dynamic!) backwater of the world which if left unchecked will lead to no end of mischief and could endanger the whole project. I suggest the list-moderator take culprits, who are rude, hurl abuse, throw tantrums and slam doors, or make unsubstantiated accusations, severely to task. A second offence should lead to immediate suspension or worse, depending on the gravity of the offence. This business is not only technical and social, it is very important to a lot of us and we should guard it vigilantly! I totally agree and for an extra reason (see previous -not-so-nice- emails by yours truly) True to this and for my part (and my disagreement with Richard) I am happy to say that's all in the past now... explanations exchanged and the
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
In message 00e101c1d5ed$82778180$0100a8c0@gamma, P Witte [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes BIG SNIP I think you just said it all ! -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Timothy Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes SNIP So, buy feel free to buy software and don't worry about your first born child. My first born child is training to be a lawyer ! -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Roy Wood wrote: But that is actually the case if you click the 'accept' box in Windoze. You are not legally entitled to sell your copy of Windoze 98 on to another user even if you have stopped using it yourself. It is all there In the US at least, that clause was deemed unlawful, because of the First Sale doctrine. A minor point, but one which is important if you're Microsoft. This whole argument has been splitting hairs and blurring what is, in fact, a very simple attempt to give you more say in what direction SMSQ/E takes whilst maintaining a stable platform. Splitting hairs is exactly what is required. I think it's better to constructively split hairs now, before the license is adopted, than have to split hairs later, after it is adopted and it's hard to impose amended conditions on existing users under the old license. My point entirely. That is what Q Branch is. I lose money on Q Branch but I do it because I enjoy using the system, I like the people and it gives Jochen and I an excuse to meet up for a meal in a foreign country. I have done this for eight years now and Jochen has done it for far longer. If either of us did this for money we would be long gone. This license must obviously protect you, but as resellers, your support role extends only to people who purchased directly from you. You're under no obligation to support users who bought from someone else. Though, knowing you Roy, you would probably give it your best shot anyway ;) Anyway, I expressed my concern, and people are now well aware of it. Either the license will change, and I can work with SMSQ, or it won't and I can't, and... (At this point, I wrote 5 paragraphs on this, but held off posting and reread and decided to delete them. It was rehashing what was already said, and therefore not constructive.) The biggest benefit of the source release will be, I suspect, not in OS development but in application and driver development, as people can look at the OS source and say Ahah! and improve their own projects. Anyway, it's not an exclusive license, so there's always room for a developer's license with more developer-friendly conditions. Probably with a different QDOSesque OS. The future will tell... Dave PS: I tire of my devil's advocate role in the search of the perfect license. I shall now retire to the shadows and see what changes, or doesn't. Hopefully, everything will continue to be this reasoned and constructive. :o)
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 16:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > okay, i've stayed out of this discussion for a while, although interesting, > it seems that some of the points about SMSQ/E have been missed. > > Can someone please send me a copy of the licence for the release of SMSQ/E > sources, so I can have a look at this. Just another small point: Remember: The "official statement" is just that. It is NOT yet the licence. The licence is yet to be drafted. I haven't even got the source code yet. Remember: point 6 said: Authors retain copyright over their additions/modifications, but when submitting their additions/modifications, they agree that, if they are accepted in any official distribution (under the statements as set out above), the may be included in all other furture distributions (in other words, you can't submit something, which is included, and then some months later attempt to withdraw it). Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 21:17, Dexter wrote: However, reality check, SMSQ is such a small seller that I doubt anyone would be able to justify suing even if there was a major infringement, or the lawyers would earn more than the entire income from SMSQ in even a very small lawsuit. Yes please... We also evoked that possibility at Eindhoven. But the situation wouldn't be any different from somebody selling bootleg copies of SMSQ/E now. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 20:59, Dexter wrote: Because I pictured it that TT had chosen a license structure and chosen three trusted people to execute it for him, Instead, he passed that role to someone he trusts, and that one person plus two resellers seem to have given themselves all the control... It's not fact - it's an impression. It's all about how it looks. And it's not too far from being true, with one or two privisos, though: 1 -Somebody has to have control - that somebody can be Tony Tebby, or anybody else. It so happens that I go the ball started, and I seem to have gotten stuck with it. Fair enough for me. But, neither I nor the 'two resellers' gave ourselves control. That was, and contiinues to be, given to us by Tony Tebby. (BTW: I sense something disparaging in the mention of two resellers. I would clearly like to state that they and, notably Jochen Merz (who has been at it for far longer) ahve supported the QL screnen for a very long time. I see nothing wrong with them getting some money. Believe me, it doesn't even cover their costs for things such as coming to Eindhoven. I believe that without their continued support, (but also that of people like Tony Firshman - or Peter Graf) the QL scene will wither and die. That does not mean that other people's support is not important either. ) 2 - EVERYTHING that will ultimately go into the licence will be submitted and approved by Tony. A minor rewrite of clarification or expansion would be nice. Don't worry, I'll come to that. I'll make the entire licence available here. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 22:33, Dexter wrote: Frankly, this is one of the best critical discussions I've participated in - Wolfgang is showing the precise listening and diplomatic qualities I would be looking for in a maintainer/registrar. Good choice Mr Tebby :o) Blush! The whole purpose of doing things as we are doing them now, is to listen to all of you. It's quite obvious from the different interventions, that we will not be able to please all of you, which is something I personally regret, but that's life. All I can say is that I read all of these mails very carefully (I even print them!), so that I can come up with something that is as close to the spirit (as Marcel rightly states) of what was discussed at Eindhoven (and later cleared by me with Tony Tebby) as possible. Ok, I'm off now... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 19:32, Dexter wrote: There are two ways to make money from SMSQ: 1. Be Tony Tebby. 2. ... And as a final comment... Mr Tony Tebby, Hi, just a small comment: 1- First of all, the decicion to pay Tony some money was NOT his. This was decided at Eindhoven. It is a decision I personally fully support. Tony DID NOT expect this payment, he even was a bit miffed when I told him about it. 2- Tony doesn't read this list (I think). Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
- Original Message - From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:05 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes snip No-one can legally sell a copy of Windoze for instance unless they are a licensed M$ distributor and these distributors pass the goods on to the shops and other outlets. That's not true even if M$ wants you to think so... Dave is absolutely right when he says that this approach is ILLEGAL totally... however for the reasons I explained to my previous email it is not illegal in our case. To further explain: If you prohibit ANYONE to sell an original version of SMSQ/E then no one would be able to sell their second-hand software for example. I would have to come to you or Jochen give you my SMSQ/E that I didn't want any more for this or the other reason and then wait until you sold it!. As you can see this is not only illegal but impractical as well :-) But that is actually the case if you click the 'accept' box in Windoze. You are not legally entitled to sell your copy of Windoze 98 on to another user even if you have stopped using it yourself. It is all there in the small print that no-one reads but every one, including the pirates, agrees to. But in English law, at least, there is something called an unfair term of contract, which, means that when you accept the conditions of a contact, you are not LEGALLY bound by any of them that are unreasonable or unfair. It is just as nonsensical as my buying a car from someone and not being allowed to drive it by the contract terms (or, indeed to sell it to someone else). If any legal system doesn't have such a an all-embracing overriding principle then I don't have much hope for it as a legal system. I bet if M$ ever tested this in an English court case they'd be shot down in seconds, now matter how many millions of dollars they was prepared to spend (but if I was the judge I'd make sure they had to spend them before they lost!!!) snip -- Peter S Tillier[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employer. Peter S Tillier[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
??? 28/3/2002 1:22:25 ðì, ?/? [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: On 27 Mar 2002, at 22:33, Dexter wrote: Frankly, this is one of the best critical discussions I've participated in - Wolfgang is showing the precise listening and diplomatic qualities I would be looking for in a maintainer/registrar. Good choice Mr Tebby :o) Seconded by me... :-) Blush! The whole purpose of doing things as we are doing them now, is to listen to all of you. It's quite obvious from the different interventions, that we will not be able to please all of you, which is something I personally regret, but that's life. The goal I think is not to please everyone (that's impossible anyway! :-) but to come to a sensible set of terms that will be fair to all concerned... developers, traders and simple users... I am very confident that Wolfgang will do this and even more The thing is that this is one of the best discussions in the list in a long time and a very complete at that as well... :-) All I can say is that I read all of these mails very carefully (I even print them!), so that I can come up with something that is as close to the spirit (as Marcel rightly states) of what was discussed at Eindhoven (and later cleared by me with Tony Tebby) as possible. Ok, I'm off now... Have a good time :-) Wolfgang -- Phoebus R. Dokos - Quantum Leap Software Web and Graphic Design - Custom Program Solutions Tech Support - Software Localization Web: http://www.dokos-gr.net ICQ#:34196116 / SMS:+30973267887 SMS:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
