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] Source Code
On 16 May 2002, at 13:28, Richard Zidlicky wrote: can you say me how exactly the license requires the resellers to provide support? In our private discussion you went to great lengths to ensure me how they are required to provide support but I can't find absolutely nothing specific about it in this license. Specifically you have promised me that the resellers will be required to fix bugs and hire people for it if they can't do it themselves. I don't comment private correspondence. Personally I am very disappointed by this license. I know. Lets call things by name. It is not a license but a non-disclosure agreement - why you insist calling it licence is beyound me. You would probably save yourself and others lots of trouble if you would look at some proper commercial NDA. Usually a license would give me some rights, this strange elaborate only gives me the revocable right to read the code. Which you hadn't before. It is also worth noting that the license is subject to change anytime without giving anyone even the slightest guarantees what the next license will look like. As are all licences. This means that anyone who will want to do something with SMSQ will have to seek separate agreements with all other copyright holders, not a pretty situation. The license says the code is copyright TT. This a void claim which only describes the current state. The license is designed to taint SMSQ by 3d party code. There is absolutely no protection against patent traps, the possibility to include code without publicaly available source invites all sorts of copyright trouble and there is also the separate agreements I have mentioned above. The license doesn't say it, but from personal emails with Wolfgang I conclude that there are people who want to write code for SMSQ in exchange for future royalty payments. There is nothing evil about commercial software development but we have a few problems here. There is no choice for the users and other developpers whether they want this 3d party commercial code. Rubbish. You can always refuse to buy an upgrade if you don't want it. A bigger problem here is that some of the developers who want to write SMSQ code for commercial interests also decide about the license, basically this license is their work. For me this is an unfortunate combination, it is a guarantee that SMSQ will never be even close to opensource. Right - so the situation until now was very inconvenient because TT, who wrote SMSQ/E also wrote the licence? Philosophically this is a very interesting concept: People who would like to contribute for free do not even get the right to use their contribution, those who will contribute commercially and seek separate agreements will also receive a share in the decissionmaking of the copyright/licensing as a reward. There is no difference between the free and non free developper - all go throught the registrar and are included in the code, or not, as the case may be. Interestingly, not all legitimate commercial interests are served equally humbly here. When Peter Graf tried to acquire the right to give away (for free) SMSQ-Q40 binaries in exchange for a substantial payment to TT he was turned down (not because he offered too little money btw). This means that Peter has no means to ensure that SMSQ will be available for the Q40/Q60 in the future - and that after having invested horrendeous amounts of money into SMSQ development for functionality that isn't even implemented until today. If, as you state, the case is that Peter paid horrendous amounts of money to get some specific work done, and that work wasn't done, then I'd say he has a good case to get his money back. Sorry to say but this is just racketeering. Are you accusing me of racketeering Peter Graf? If not me, then whom? Given this precedens it also means that other HW developpers would be completely insane to invest money or effort into SMSQ without special agreements that will only make the overall situation worse. Wolfgang you are welcome to give us your *guarantees* that I am wrong. I've already pointed out several times here that my job is to make sure as much as possible that coherent versions exist for all machines. Last not least, there is the purely practical braindamage of the licence. I did quite frequently write drivers for HW which I didn't have installed myself, with SMSQ I would be required to smail the source changes for each development cycle to someone having the hardware - I am not even allowed to S P E L L the changes over phone line!! Not that I would consider touching the code with a 100 ft pole. So this is a moot point. If there is 1 good thing about NDA's than its that a closed circle of developers can work relatively free of any hassle. Wolfgang has managed to combine the worst of all possible licenses here.
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Hi all, This is to keep you informed of the state and status of the SMSQ/E source code. The future licence-to-be has been a bit modified, notably to take into account the fact that test versions must be easily distributed. Here is the (still provisional) text. As usual, I invite all of you to comment. I have now received the source code from Tony Tebby, and, as soon as this licence is hammered out and I have had a chance to put everything in order, I'll start sending it out. I'm now taking orders . Official statement == 1/ This software, called 'SMSQ/E', is copyright © Tony TEBBY. Any unauthorized copying or use of the software, whether in binary or source code form, and/or its documentation is prohibited. 2/ SMSQ/E will be made available, as source code only, to any person who so requests it. The request must be made to the registrar, i.e. me. The source code will be sent via CD ROM, thus the request must be accompanied by 3 IRCs, else it will be ignored. The SMSQ/E that will be so made available is the SMSQ/E as it stands NOW. Any future changes/additions/modifications/adaptions to this code may, or may not, be excluded from the offcial release version, since the authors of such changes/additions/modifications/adaptions may state whether they want their source code to be included in the official distribution, or not. 3/ No distribution of SMSQ/E may be SOLD, except for the official distribution. This interdiction includes that of including and distributing SMSQ/E in Public domain libraries. Official distributions will be sold in compiled (binary) form, possibly together with the official distribution as source code. For such sales, for the time being, two distributors/resellers, namely Jochen MERZ (JMS) and Roy WOOD (QBRANCH) have been appointed by the copyright holder. Resellers provide support for the versions sold by them. Except by prior agreement, binary, i.e. compiled, versions of SMSQ/E may not be distributed other than through the distributors. 4/ The registrar, i.e. me, will maintain official distributions of SMSQ/E, in binary and source code form, one for each machine on which SMSQ/E may run. 5/ Any person may make any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions to the source code he feels like. Any person may give away to others the modification he thus made, including the official distribution in source code form only, provided this is made ENTIRELY FOR FREE - no charges, not even copying charges, or charges for the media on which this is distributed, may be levied. This distribution of the source code including the changes/additions/modifications/adaptions made by any author may not be made in electronic form other than on a physical disk. Distribution of the changes/additions may be in binary(compiled) form, provided that the original and/or official version of SMSQ/E, which is copyright © T.Tebby, is not distributed in binary form as well. 6/ Any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions may be proposed by their author(s) to the registrar for inclusion in the official distributions of SMSQ/E. The registrar is not obliged to inclue any proposed changes/additions/modifications/adaptions in official versions. When making such a proposal for inclusion, the author of the changes/additions/modifications/adaptions may state whether his contribution: - is to be distributed in the same way as the official version, or - is to be made only in the compiled (binary) form of the official distribution, or - is to be made alongside, but not included in, the official distribution. Failing such a statement, the inclusion will be contained in the compiled and the source code versions. By submitting code to the registrar, the author agrees to the limitations as set out herein. 7/Authors retain copyright over their changes/additions/modifications/adaptions, but when and by submitting them to the registrar, they explicitly agree that, if they are accepted in any official distribution (under the provisions hereof), they may be included in all other future distributions (in other words, you can't submit something, which is included, and then some months later attempt to withdraw it). By and when submitting proposed changes/additions/modifications/adaptions to the registrar, author(s) of such changes/additions/modifications/adaptions also agree that others may, in the future, bring about changes/additions/modifications/adaptions to the code of any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions such as submitted to the registrar. Copyright of the author(s) of any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions will be acknowledged in the official distribution. 8/ For testing purposes only, authors having made one or several changes/additions/modifications/adaptions of SMSQ/E may, as an exception to the prohibition of distributing code stemming from the official release version in binary
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 13 May 2002, at 16:04, Jerome Grimbert wrote: Good! but I think you need an appendix which states: - Who is the registar - What is the address of the registar - Who are the distributors/resellors (address and more also) yes of course, you're right, at least as far as the registrar goes - the reseller list can evolve perhaps more easily (unless you all vote me out of the office...). } Official statement } == } } } 1/ This software, called 'SMSQ/E', is copyright } © Tony TEBBY. I know you have better understanding of laws than me, but I've always been told that: - Copyright without a date is void. (How else would I get a chance to wait for it to expire...) - Copyright is only for USA, there is different protection in Europ (including the Bern convention which acknoledge the US copyright). Specifically, the statements should reserve all the rights excepted the ones already mentionned. (Just in case I want to make a movie out of the SMSQ/E, currently, nothing stop me from: - adapting - broadcasting the play - making DVD of the play - distributing DVD of the play - ... Umm yes; the probability of anybody making a play out of SMSQ/E is pretty small though ... :-). As to the Copyright, yes the date will be there, and, despite the Berne Convention and the way copyright is handled in some european countries, it still is better to add the sign... As I said, Put the 'i.e. me' in an appendix. And provide your postal address too! The post office should get a visit soon. Good! And of course I shall! Ok, That should fix the 'beta' distribution! But there is later contradiction. Contradiction? I'd prefer exception. An exception to a rule is no contradiction (unless you want to get all philosophical now...). That's define the obligations of the registrar, but that's does not forbid someone else from doing the same. Well, at least the resellors might also provide support, but probably not debugging/correction ? Well - support! As for somebody else doing the same, the licence explicitly allows you to distribute the source code, so no problem there. Good, there is nevertheless no obligation to distribute the original source along with the change... I'm afraid of the distribution of 'patched' sources only, with divergent patches... Integration nightmare ? Ah - but there is only one Official distribution at any moment in time. I do NOT want to stop people from diddling with the code if they want to. Ok, no web, no email, no ftp, no BBS, no ...; What's a disk ? floppy or CD ? would a Syquest elect ? what about a Zip ? and a sinclair microdrive ? a DVD-R ? What about QL network ? even via sernet ? I think that I can reasonably say that a disk is ...a disk. I do not think that we would really have much difficuly in deciding whether something is a disk ornot. There is restriction on the distribution of the source, but I do not read there is such for the binary. It says somewhere that you can't deistribute the binaries of SMSQ/E - period (with the test version exception). Now, if you write an extension to the OS in such a way that it can be distributed alone, why should this be concerned by the SMSQ/E licence ? - let's take Thierry Godefroy's CD driver as an example. It is a simple file that can be LRESPR'D - so why should it be covered by the SMSQ/E licence? TG can do whetever he likes with it. On the other hand, if it were integreted into the OS, then it would come within the scope of the licence. But, if TG has the SMSQ/E codes, perhaps the can make his own driver even better (if this were possible :-)) or suggest/implement changes to the OS (e.g. Open calls, thierry???) that makes his code better. Moreover, the binary distribution seems to be allowed until a ressellors make available an official versions (without or with the change). No.. Was the intend to allow the distribution of a modified binary by someone, as long as this someone does not also provide the original or official version in binary too ? As long as nothing of SMSQ/E itself is also distributed. [Pervert distribution: I change the default background to be blue instead of black, and that's the only change, therefore I'm allowed to charge big money for distribution of the binary, or even to distribute the new binary on the web!] No that won't work. May I quote: Except by prior agreement, binary, i.e. compiled, versions of SMSQ/E may not be distributed other than through the distributors. There is an exception for testing versions, that's it. Currently, the modified source is free and protected, the modified binary need more restriction (at least for free and distribution means) or I need confirmation about my silly thoughts. :-) I hope the above is clear enough? } 6/ Any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions } may be proposed by their author(s) to the }
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 13 May 2002, at 13:44, Dave wrote: Never say things likje 'the registrar, i.e. me.' because this means me is the registrar. This is very open to abuse. You would here put a personal or organisation name and contact details. Obviously this is a draft, but this does need correcting. Sure - this is why this isn't the licence yet. (snip) binary distribution. There. Software developers are explicitly allowed to distribute beta/test versions as listed above. ..as an exception to the rule, as is explicitly stated - sure. I seem to remember this was inspired by you. :-) However, the way this is currently structured is open to abuse. May I suggest a small change here? Limit distribution of beta/test versions to only those who a) are already entitled by license to posess a copy and b) are actively involved in testing or debugging the software. This will allow genuine distribution, but prevent distribution on a friendly basis. I thought about that, but there were two arguments that dissuaded me from it: If you develop new hardware, the tester may not have a legitimate copy of SMSQ/E yet - since it runs on new hardware... Some testers are only users - they are great testers, but are they actively involved (try to define that!!!) ? Finally, I strongly advise a change to the structure of the document now that the content is almost there ;o) I would recommend defining Licensor, Licensed Distributor, Licensed Developer and Licensed User as all have different rights and restrictions placed on them by the above license. Yup. If you would like, I would be happy to assist you privately to do this, without changing either the intent or the specifics of the license as it now stands... Or even publicly! I have absolutely no qualms about accepting help from all of you! Wolfgang
[ql-users] re: Zzz
Hi, Per asked about button_sleep. I've had a quick look at it, and it does seem to use some obscure ways of achieving its goals (notably playing around with the primary linked list). Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Zzz
On 4 May 2002, at 23:56, P Witte wrote: Because I want to control my own button I dont want to use the BUTTON_SLEEP utility but the locking and removal bit, without apparently upsetting the windows in any way is what Im after. Hi - I'm a bit in a hurry today, so no reply at leangth - on Thursday... Just a question: do you want to mimick the behviour of button- sleep, or do you just want to put your job to sleep in the normal way (close wdws, open one for the button, after button click, redraw wdws?). PS: if you're doint this from basic, why not use exep 'button_sleep' - puts your job to sleep. Wolfgang PS: sorry, I can't help with the translations, always used the english versions...
Re: [ql-users] QeyMail question...
On 24 Apr 2002, at 21:50, Dilwyn Jones wrote: Guess I should have read Norman Dunbar's article about handling stacks properly in QReview magazine at the time (there...back on topic in no time at all!) And how do yu explain the sheep in that context? grin Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] QXLWIN v1.06 and partitions
On 24 Apr 2002, at 22:59, Richard Zidlicky wrote: nope, the problem is more complicated, I guess you have formatted that QXL.WIN file on a QPC drive. That's true. On Q40/Q60 and Atari the IDE bus is connected to the CPU bus in such a way that data comming from the HD appears 16-bit byte reversed as compared when you attach the same drive to PC-ish hardware. Oh, so it still is the wrong way round on the drive? Traditionally swapping hard disks was not seen as useful or common enough to compensate this in software, afaics only Linux has an option for it. It's true that I don't often take the disk out of the Q60 to put it in a PC - what with hotswappable drives... So, if I did this,the content of a QXLWIN file would seem to be byte reversed? To summarise: there is a bus-endian and a cpu-endianness issue. CPU is the same for QPC and Q40/Q60 so you only see the bus-endian issue. If you want to use Q40 hard disks on PC hardware you need to use the 'hdX=swapdata' option (linux) for this drive.. anyone knows equivalent option for WinXX? No, never heard of it. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] QXLWIN v1.06
On 24 Apr 2002, at 15:59, Claus Graf wrote: I just didn't know. Is it true then, that it works with every device, that has direct sector access (win, flp,..)? No, flp probably won't work, because th direct sector addressing there is very special (depends on the type of disk, too). The latest version is 1.07 Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] THING questions
On 16 Apr 2002, at 11:15, Timothy Swenson wrote: (things) Hi, just a few small answers that may point you in the right direction: 1 - What is a Forced Free? I know that you FREE a THING when an application stops using it, but I can't find an explanation for FORCED FREE. Forced free is when the job owning the thing is removed. A thing could be set up in such a way that the linkage block is not stored in the common heap, but within the memory area of a job. When that job disapperas, so will the thing. Hence a routine to make sure that all other jobs using this thing will also disappear - that is forced free. 2 - What is a Forced Zap? The TT docs talk about ZAP and use the term FORCED ZAP in defining the THING table. It looks like a FORCED ZAP is just another word for ZAP. Is this correct? Sorry, I wan't able to find where it mentiones a forced zap. A zap is normally the removal of a thing. You can force remove a thing. 3 - Pointer to close routine vs. Pointer to code In the THING table, TH_FRFRE is defined as a Pointer to close routine for Forced Free, and TH_FFREE is defined as a Pointer to code to Force Free a THING. What's the difference between the close routine and code for Forced Free. Would these two pointers point to the same code or are they two unique pieces of code that do two different operations? To me it looks like the two pointers are redudant. TH_FRFRE is an OS supplied piece of code - don't touch it. TH_FREE is the code the thing writer supplies for a forced free (i.e. the job ownning the thing is removed). 4 - How long is a THING name? TH_NAME in the THING table does not seem to have a definition of how long it should be. It is defined as a QDOS string which has a terminating character? Is there any limitation on size? Th_name is defined as a string - hence the usual length word followed by the name itself (ha -so we KNOW the length of a piece of string!). There is no limit on the length other than that imposed by using a length word. (is a 32K long name long enough?) 5 - THING Header I'm guessing that the THING Header (as defined by TT) is part of the THING code itself (as pointed to by TH_THING) and not part of the THING table. yes. If so, is the header the first bit of code in the THING? It probably isn't code, but it is to where TH_thing points. The header is just an area of memory containing some information about the thing itself - it doesn't contain any (executable) code. Hopefully someone will know the answers to these questions and take the time to enlighten me. I hope I have succedded. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Another stupid question.... re Floppies
On 18 Apr 2002, at 9:20, Tony Firshman wrote: Needs a tiny soldering bit though and bravado. .. and you have lots of those... (I presume.) Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] EasyPtr
On 10 Apr 2002, at 13:52, Claude Mourier 00 wrote: Moi, je me contenterai de la version française ;-) D'accord, cela mettra un peu de temps de la rechercher dans mes fichiers archvivés... Après le weekend. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] QXL-Cards
On 11 Apr 2002, at 16:32, Wolfgang Uhlig wrote: Hi everybody, I have three QXL-cards to give away, is anybody interested? Wolfgang Uhlig Yeah, I'll take one. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] QXL-Cards
On 11 Apr 2002, at 12:46, Phoebus Dokos wrote: At 12:31 ìì 11/4/2002, you wrote: On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: HA! Don't be greedy Wolfgang.. you already have one Q60... let us poor US resident's get something too (*sniffles*) Ok, Ok, I give up. Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] EasyPtr
On 9 Apr 2002, at 20:20, Timothy Swenson wrote: Sometimes it's easier to learn by comparing the same general topic between computer systems. I started learning Windowing by reading on Perl/TK and comparing it with the Pointer Interface. It helps a little bit, but the data constructs and terms are very different. I've also tried understanding the QDOS kernel my learning the Unix kernel. Quite a number of years ago, I wrote a new explanation of the pointer interface and how to program it in QPTR. Unfortunately, it's all in French. Would somebody care to translate that? Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] EasyPtr
On 9 Apr 2002, at 11:57, P Witte wrote: Youre quite right. The only wee difference is that of designing graphical objects intellectually or visually ;) Perhaps I'm more the cerebral type, then... More seriously, when designing most programs, I try to get a QPAC2 style look anyway. There is not much visual invention there... Also, I find that I have to envision the objects I want to design anyway (e.g. for The Wall), and having a more visual interface doesn't help me there. Then it's just a question of placing them - and that is pretty easy, anyway. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] OT Texas
On 8 Apr 2002, at 23:00, Dexter wrote: On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Malcolm Cadman wrote: Wow ! ... I guess everything in Texas is big then :-) I don't know about that, but they say that George W. Bush is half human, half texan. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] EasyPtr
On 8 Apr 2002, at 19:59, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Seriously now, between what I saw Wolfgang and Marcel achieving with QPTR and EasyPTR respectively... I agree that at least ONE PTR toolkit (either) should be in one's arsenal :-) Oh but Marcel had the idea, not me. It's just a question of what you're used to. I never used EasyPtr, and found QPTR easy once I understood the concepts behind the PE. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E Source Code, general
On 8 Apr 2002, at 14:34, Joachim Van der Auwera wrote: -not done via a Website or FTP. Not a safe way, sourceforge does not (always) use either, but it uses CVS. To make this safer, change it to not done electronically, with the exception of email or something similar. OK, I'll do that, thanks for the suggestion. How are you? Everything OK with you? How's your brother? Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 8 Apr 2002, at 17:25, Dexter wrote: If you resent that comment, I didn't explain it properly. Or I didn't understand it. Yes, Tony will make a little money from SMSQ. I doubt the resellers will - they'll probably cover costs. I was trying to say that some of the money should stay with the people that are doing the work - the resellers. They are FREE to fix the price they want to sell it at. If they only charge 10 EUR, all of that goes to TT. If they charge eur 1000, still only 10 of that goes to TT... Sorry I caused offense. Case of too big a point expressed in too few words ?:o) No offense. I think we're getting along admirably! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E Source Code, general
On 8 Apr 2002, at 15:47, Richard Zidlicky wrote: probably wrong. It indicates that the provisorial license was so badly formulated that everyone found his loophole in it and was happy. Yes, that's another way of looking at it -so I was overly optimistic, then. the point is that with a usable licence you could have cured the split between Minerva, QDOS Classic (technically unrelated to QDOS) and SMSQ. With this license you only avoid new splits and new development in this one branch I will happilly contribute to whatever SMSQ alternatives there are. Ok, point taken - a pity, really! what about source only? You can distribute the source only, of course, but not electonically, it has to be an a physucal media. allright, someone will setup an rdist daemon than. This point is ridiculous. What is a website differnet from a mailing list or email list or TFTP or samba or NFS or snail or POP or IMAP or any other way to distribute the code? You are not alone in making this point, hence the not to be distributed electronically bit. You may choose following formulation for your license, perhaps it follows your intentions: Anyone is free to distribute the source code provided that: a) he doesn't receive any form of payment or reimbursement b) the distribution method is guaranteed to cost him at least 10 Euro and 2 hours of work per copy No, it must cost him more, since he must already pay 10 EUR to TT (but NOT for the cource code only). very helpful.. but I am not involved so why bother. Indeed. I will *more than happilly* leave the fun to disassemble broken SMSQ-Q40 code, diagnose problems in it and implement workarounds or fixes to the resellers who - according to your license - are obliged to do support. It is really nice to see appointed professionals and not some amateurs doing this. Indeed, again. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 8 Apr 2002, at 15:52, Richard Zidlicky wrote: don't say it will be open source then - it won't. True. Forget those who have seen this as a great chance for SMSQ. I still see it as such. You can still get the code, you can still make changes, you can still dustribute your changes in source code form. TT was ready to make available his treasure for *free* - and this is what comes out. Really pretty.. there was so little missing to make this a perfect world. Instead it turns into disaster. I entirely disagree, of course. This is no disaster. It is a different way to distributing it completely open, yes. You may be surprised that I perceive the situation so negative, it is because I assume we can hardly expect TT to do any work on SMSQ in the future and I am now pretty curious to see who who will work for free under this license. I will, if my job as registrar leaves me the time. Perhaps others will, as well. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 26 Mar 2002, at 21:34, Timothy Swenson wrote: (...) 5/ Any person may make any change to the source code he feels like. Any person may give away to others the modificaton he thus made, including the official distribution in source code form only, provided this is made ENTIRELY FOR FREE - no charges, not even copying charges, or charges for the media on which this is distributed, may be levied. But, a charge can be made if the original source code is not included, meaning just any new code that the author created. Well of course, if you don't distribute SMSQ/E with your change (say it is a simple patch you LRESPR) how could I interfere with that? I have no rights whatsoever to your code. Also, if I can compile just my code as a stand alone object, is this statement saying that I can't distribute my own stuff, even without the SMSQ/E source code. NO - same reply as above Again this is badly worded and leaves more logic holes, esp. when trying to tell an author what they can or can not do with their own code. Boooh! Well, I hate to talk about something in the works, esp. when I don't know when I might finish it, but I'm currently working on a Idiot's Guide (in the same vein as the one Norman did) for PE programming and on THINGS (so that I better understand it all). I would like to do one for the OS in general and have a draft that is only about 20% complete. I prefer to have documentation that does not assume the reader knows assembly. I also like the more complex OS documentation to use terms used by other OS books (processes, threads, atomic, semaphores, mutex's, etc). I try and understand both QDOS and Unix by comparing the two, picking up little pieces of each as I go. This is great news! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 26 Mar 2002, at 21:58, Richard Zidlicky wrote: No, compiled versions can only be obtained via the official resellers. HW vendors have to get a licence now, too.. if there is a way for them to get the license. Yes, sure there is - why shouldn't they become resellers? (testing problems) This is one point I'lm taking more time on. But you WILL get a reply. People surely won't buy SMSQ merely to save the work of compiling it themselves, they will probably buy it to get manuals and added services (SMSQ hotlines ?;). Some will, some won't.The fact is that if people can get binaries for free, they will - AND then badger the resellers for advice. YES THEY WILL! Obstruction doesn't work well as access control and 99% of the cases will cause more trouble to the good guys then to simple thieves. I agree. But then, we're not concerned that much about the thieves, but the vast majority of people who are honest. And, withing the QL community -as it is now- people are honest. (soundforge) you don't have to, but there is nothing in the copyright statement that would forbid anyone from keeping an inofficial mirror on Sourceforge or wherever. Your paragraph 5 appears to allow that explicitly. It will be there. Bye Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:01, Dexter wrote: This is a reply to some concerns raised by Dexter on the future Licence. Please read my more general reply first. (very large snip) Let me explain how this restriction relates to me, and how it makes SMSQ/E unusable to me. This is a real world case. This is a great example! I am developing an ARM-based microcomputer, in the traditional sense. It will be a single board, with all the interfaces built in. It will fit the QL form factor, and could fit in a QL case. It will need an OS, and parts of that OS will need to be optimized or even replaced to make the code run more quickly and 'safely' on uQLx, and with parts of the code being converted to native ARM assembly. I would have to submit my sources, which would imemdiately become publicly available whether I like it or not, Two replies here: 1/ You DO NOT HAVE TO SUBMIT YOUR SOURCES. I very much encourage you to do so, but you do not have to. BUT, only source submitted to me will be part of the official release versions. 2 / Even if you do submit your sources to me, they can be kept secret (except from me). See the more general reply for this. and which may not even be accepted. If they are not accepted, there is no way for me to use those modifications under the license. That is true. I would have to contact TT or yourself and negotiate the right to distribute, which would likely be declined as causing a code branch. Yes, this possibility exists. However, all I can say is that we are pretty reasonable. If you make a specific version of SMSQ/E for a very specific hardware, I fail to see why there should not be an official release version for that machine (with one proviso). You could be a reseller for SMSQ/E for that machine - and there you have it. The proviso mentioned above is that, if it is perceived that, ON PURPOSE, you make your version of SMSQ/E incompatible to the others, then I'd probably refuse to accept it. I don't know why anybody would do such a thing, but human nature being as it is... I would just talk to Lau and use Minerva if that was the case. I hope your fears are dispelled. I appreciate you want a co-ordinated road, but this rule doesn't just give a co-ordinated road, it gives no other roads whatsoever allowed for any commercial development whatsoever. This I don't agree with that, of course. The problem with control over anything is always that, to be effective, the control must be total, at least potentially. It is up to you (or me, in this case), to use this reasonably. I can't do more than assure you that this will be the case. No, this usually isn't the case in my experience. In this project there would be 2-3 developers/coders, and 4-5 others who would be beta testers. Firmware would initially be tested by the developers/coders, and once everything looks ok, the 4-5 non-paying testers would use the equipment, normally, and would find any interactions with other hardware/software that the three developers just do not have the time/equipment/range of hardware/combinations to do. The testing issue will be addressed in the short future. Any law has to be convenient in a society that people don't have to put themselves out to obey it. This is why everybody speeds and nobody robs banks... If the rule is just too inconvenient, people will ignore, circumvent or just make it irrelevant by using something else. To be quite frank : shudder. Ok, this is a bit OT, but, if you DO speed, and DO cause harm to anybody because of this, you WILL be punished. I know that people will always take shortcuts, but I've also heard people justify a bank robbery by saying that, after all, banks are insured and that nobody really loses any money when the bank is robbed. Needless to say, there again, I don't agree - but I DO see your point! Wolfgang, consider this a test. Like I said, this is *mostly* devil's advocate, though one rule does affect me so negatively it rules SMSQ out for a project I am doing. If the criticisms are voiced, the concerns raised, the issues discussed and reasoned and if necessary modifications made, everyone benefits. Yes! I'm not sure I passed the test, except for one aspect, i.e. that I try to reply to each concern, as it is voiced, in a civilized manner. I took my time doing it, but that, I hope, is OK. I would like to see this conversation remain as light as it is now. If it gets vitriolic, I shall withdraw, as that isn't constructive. So far, we're all doing really great :o) Entirely agreed! Wolfgang
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 16:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Might be an idea to get the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides to take the toys away again. Just an idea. it has happened before, but won't now. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:31, Phoebus Dokos wrote: 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 :-) That is very probable. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:56, Dexter wrote: (...) If a user already has a licensed copy of SMSQ, a developer should be entitled to include the modified or updated version at no cost to the user. This should be true for same version groups only - eg an upgrade from 2.X to 3.X would be chargeable but from 2.2 to 2.3 would not. Thoughts? This does seem reasonable, even though, this is not true as things stand now. Normally, a user is entitled to a free new version, if the previous version contains a bug that makes his version unuseable. All other versions are paid for. But I think something can be worked out - we only have to look at how thngs are being handled right now. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 27 Mar 2002, at 9:24, Phoebus Dokos wrote: 1. The copyright for SMSQ/E is retained by Tony Tebby (Nothing weird here, just like Linux) Agreed. 1. There are (currently) two official distributors of LICENSED binaries and ONLY official Distributors can SELL SMSQ/E. The official resellers are the only source for binaries (unles you compile the source yourself). 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) OK. The registrar make available the official release version. I certify that the version you get from me is the latest official release version. 3. Any modifications CANNOT be publicised until approved by the registrar No, untrue. You can give the sources( with your changes) away, if this is free of charge etc... The registrat only cares about inclusion in the official rlease versions. 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. NO, NO, NO. See my more general explanation. (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 Yes, you can give away the sources free of charge NOT the binaries. 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) yes. 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) There is no contradictionbetween 2 7. You CAN get sources from the PD library.BUT they will not be the official release versions - these are only available from me. 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 Ok, I've put you down as somebody to send the official release version to... Oh, by the way: DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH. I'm not sure when I'll get the sources. Wolfgang
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:10, Dexter wrote: No offense, Wolfgang, but you don't seem to appreciate the gravity of your statement. No, I don't. Also, I'm not implying end users should be beta testers, just that beta testers shouldn't be required to be programmers too. Good, at least we see eye to eye on this! (...) There are two kinds of features involved. Both need to be handled differently. Soft features, which provide a functionality, API or interface for an application to use ina consistent manner, are very much the business of the maintainer and at the heart of what he is doing - it is through keeping these consistent that he ensures compatibility. Again, I agree completely. Hard features, which may require changes to the OS to make different hardware look alike to the OS and applications, are much harder for the maintainer to handle. He a) has to have a sample of the hardware, and b) has to have an in-depth knowledge of what changes were necessary to make it happen. Think of the implications. Does the maintainer buy the hardware, or is the developer required to give/loan a prototype to them? This is where the idea of key developers comes in. I can delegate those tasks to them! *shudders* same here. I don't think I'm going to devil's advocate that particular quandry any more - it's just getting too frightening persuing the ramifications... No, I can use all the help I can get so that we can hammer something out! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 13:02, Phoebus Dokos wrote: I sincerely fail to see the point in this. If you want to protect the vendors, it is indeed EXTREMELY easy to provide protected access on a site and you could give a password to anyone that asks you about it. This way you can still control distribution without restricting people that have difficulty (see for example Lafe) to get the files otherwise... Would that be accepted? I haven't thought much about it. The thing is : how many people, reaslistically, will want to look at the sources to do something about them? 50? (and I believe I'm optimistic, here!) Does this justify the entire rigamarole of setting up a website for this? I'm not sure. Do you think this would be justified? Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E Source Code, general
Hi all, Thank you all for your patience whilst waiting for me to read and digest all of your comments. I hope most of your concerns will be addessed below. I now have had enough time to read all your replies, requests comments and criticisms very carefully. I'll be replying to some emails in particular, to get rid of some points and fears expressed, they are also on this list. This here missive is just to set out the general points. First of all, I must admit that the criticisms were less sharp than I feared that some might be, which indicates, broadly speaking, a general agreement with most of the principles set out earlier, if not necessarily with the implemenation of them. I recognize, of course, that some people are not happy at all and, whilst I also recognize that I cant please all people, I still would like to try, even if, as Phoebos Dokos pointed out, this is not necessarily the point of this exercise. I have more or less amalgamated all of your comments and criticisms, to avoid having to reply to each e-mail individually. I hope you all dont mind. If I have forgotten to reply to a particular point you have made, please let me know. Before I start out, I would just like to define the words original sources. These are the sources of SMSQ/E as I shall (hopefully soon) get them from Tony Tebby. Official sources are those distributed by the registrat, which comprise the original sources and any modifications/additions that will hopefully be made. Before going into the details, I want, agan, to stress a point. A pretty high degree of control has been retained over what will be an official release and what will not be. Many people have objected to some aspect or other of this control. Please be aware that this wasnt done because I, or anybody else, is a control freak, nor that I, or anybody else, revels in the power that control supposedly gives us. I am really concerned about the fragmentation of SMSQE. There are already 3 QDOS related systems out there: - QDOS and QDOS Classic (as available on the Q40/Q60) - Mineva - SMSQ/E. If we split this up even further, we will only divide our community even further, getting to the point where there will be programs that run only on one machne, and only on one OS on that machine. THAT IS SOMETHING WE MUST ABSOLUTELY AVOID. Hence, the system of a registrar, whose main job, as I perceive it, is to attempt to bully the individual and highly competent!- software authors to work together, so that one change on a machine is at least made in such a way that it also becomes possible on the others. The price for this attempt at coherence is a degree of control. I do not find this unreasonable. Remember, the PC world has always had the motto divide and conquer. Lets NOT fall into that trap. Ok, now lets get some of the legalities out of the way. I know that some part of the future licence, as tentatively set out in the offcial statement, are a bit convoluted, and various persons have pointed out to me that a GPL licence would have been so much easier (especially for me...). That is true, but would have led nowhere, as several other people would simply not hear of it, since they want to retain some control over their own software. And there is the aspect of distributing the binaries, to which I will come later, which also made this impractical.. I also know that, as Timothy Swenson pointed out, the licence as set out in the official statement is much perfectible. Please only remember that the official statement is not the licence, which will be sharpened up a bit. However, I do not propose to make it into the multi page documents used by M$soft et al., for various reasons, one of which is the futility of it all. The licence is there to keep you honest. I cant see anybody really suing over it, unless you want to make YOUR lawyer rich. (If it really came to it, Id probably act as Tonys lawyer, and that would not cost him any money just so you know... (ha!)). Moreover, if I really want to be perfectly legally coherent, I would have to draw up one licence per country. Ill make it easier, and draw up one licence - and to make it more difficult for you, I may draft it in french... (with an english translation, perhaps). (ha, again!) Copyright status of additions/modifications. Some concern has been voiced (notably by Joachim van der Auwera) about the copyright status of the additions/modifications brought about in the future by various authors to the original sources. The official statement said the following: " 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). Let me clarify this. Copyright of the
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. No, the licence hans't been done yet. 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. ... To be quite frank, I resent that comment. the decision the pay TT some money was not his, but was an agreement we came to at Eindhoven. TT has put in an enormous amount of time and money into SMSQ/E, and HAS not gotten back as much as he should. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 8 Apr 2002, at 5:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wolfgang, Just a slight question - will the sources include the source for SDUMP - this needs updating to support more printers! Simple reply : I don't know. I've never seen the sources until now, so I have NO IDEA what they look like, nor what is in them. Tony is slowly getting ready to assemble them and send them to me. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] More on Graphics etc...
On 28 Mar 2002, at 17:35, Phoebus Dokos wrote: One other thing that puzzles me is to find a quick way to fade out colours... I made a modest contribution to that - and you have the source code in the fade keyword in PAN... Wolfgang
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
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] Source Code Status
On 26 Mar 2002, at 8:58, Norman Dunbar wrote: You have my approval. Hopefully, when you get sorted out, I'll be sending off my IRC coupons for a CD and having my first look at the source code. Who knows, I might be able to (a) understand it and (b) contribute. Thanks for the approval. I'll let this list know when I have the code. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 25 Mar 2002, at 11:29, John Hall wrote: Some hypothetical questions: i) Would I be able to give away my modification(s) in source form without including the official distribution sources? ii) Would I be able to give away my modified version of SMSQ/E in compiled form? iii) Would I be able to put my modified version of the source code on, say, Sourceforge? Hi I'm not ignoring your email, I'll come back to it a bit later... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 26 Mar 2002, at 10:42, Thierry Godefroy wrote: QXL - Thierry Godefroy Why not ? Although my programming efforts will be mainly turned towards the Q60, now... Well there doesn't seem to be anybody who knows the QXL as you do (did?). Aurora ? SuperGoldCard ? I got Aurora+SGC, so here again, I could help... Of course, Ill take any help I can get! PS: I'm overly busy right now, so I can't really participate to the discussions, but I will keep reading eagerly this thread and will only react in case I disagree on some point... To those who are wondering: I just can't updates my websites right now, I will do it ASAP (i.e. probably in two or three months !)... Just get back safe! (and not ONLY for the QXL's sake) Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 25 Mar 2002, at 8:37, Jerome Grimbert wrote: No need to twist my arms, I will gladly help. Yippeee! Yes, as long as you can redistribute the work to someone with the right platform, in order to keep everybody going in the same direction, even if sometime some platforms are a step ahead on the right, while someother are another step ahead on the left, the main things being to always converge as soon as possible, but without impairing innovations. Ye. That's exactly what I had in mind. Welcome aboard... Wolfgang -- Grimbert Jérôme
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 18 Mar 2002, at 15:29, Dilwyn Jones wrote: This is good news, a positive step forward. And having someone as highly regarded as you in the QL world as registrar will be a popular move I am sure. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I suspect you'll get more 'hate mail' for the length of the email not the content ;-) If that's all I get, I'll gladly take it, even though there have been astonishingly few reactions so far. Of course, I take that as full approval of what been done Some time ago, I started on consolidating the SBASIC extras from the various SMSQ/E guides I have copies of from Jochen into the keywords section of the QL user guide. With everything else (QL Toady...PD library...software writing...lengthy articles about QPC2 taking over Quanta newsletter...) I doubt I'll be able to do a full documentation, but once the keyword guide is finished or a bit more advanced (the situation agreed with SMSQE gives me an incentive!) I'd be happy for this to be used in the 'official' docs if anyone else is considering doing a new manual. Thanks, I'll gladly take you up on that! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
Hi all, Following the discussions at EIndhoven,here is what has been agreed upon, Tony TEBBY also having agreed to it: In short: Whilst Tony Tebby will retain copyright over the code, anyone may have a copy of the source code and modify it ang give it away for free. There will also be an official version of SMSQ/E that will be maintained by a registrar and be sold by 2 people, namely Roy WOOD and Jochen Merz. Support for this official version will be part of the price. The purpose for the official version is to make sure, as much as possible, that any change to SMSQ/E for one amchine (e.g. Q60 or QPC) will percolate down to all other machines (e.g. QPC, Q40, QXL etc...) as fast as possible, in an attempt to make sure that we have one single version with the same features (hardware permitting) for all machines. Any change made by anybody may be proposed to the registrar for inclusion in the official version. Ok, the above is the essence of what was agreed upon, for a more detailed version, read on: Official statement == 1/ Tony TEBBY retains copyright of SMSQ/E as it stands now. 2/ SMSQ/E will be made available, as source code, to any person who so requests it. The request must be made to the registrar, i.e. me. The source code will be sent via CD ROM, thus the request must be accompanied by 3 IRCs, else it will be ignored. The SMSQ/E that will be so made available is the SMSQ/E as it stands NOW. Any future additions/changes may, or may not, be excluded from this, since the authors of such additions/changes may state whether they want their source code to be included in the official distribution, or not. 3/ No distribution of SMSQ/E may be SOLD, except for for the official distribution. This interdiction includes that of including and distibuting SMSQ/E in Public domain libraries. Official distributions will be sold in compiled form, possibly together with the official distribution as source code. For such sales, for the time being, two distributors, namely Jochen MERZ (JMS) and Roy WOOD (QBRANCH) have been appointed by the copyright holder. 4/ The registrar, i.e. me, will maintain official distributions of SMSQ/E, one for each machine on which SMSQ/E may run. 5/ Any person may make any change to the source code he feels like. Any person may give away to others the modificaton he thus made, including the official distribution in source code form only, provided this is made ENTIRELY FOR FREE - no charges, not even copying charges, or charges for the media on which this is distributed, may be levied. 6/ Any such change may be proposed to the registrar for inclusion in the official distributions of SMSQ/E. When making such a proposal for inclusion, the author of the addition/modificaton may state whether the inclusion - is to be made only in the compiled form of the official distribution - is to be made alongside, but not included in, the official distribution. Failing such a statement, the inclusion will be contained in the compiled and the source code versions. The author then agrees to the limitations as set out above. 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). Their contribution is subject to the same licence as the rest. 7/ A styleguide will be maintained by the registrar, to which any addition must adhere. The styleguide will be part of the official distribution End of official statement. Finally, I would like to add a personal note: A - Some passages of the above, mainly those which result in a limited distribution of SMSQ/E may loook pretty harsh to some of you, especially the proponents of totally open software. However, I consider that there are a few people (like JMS and Qbranch) who are the glue that hold the QL world still together. If they have absolutely no financial incentive to continue, they probably won't. In my opinion, the effect on the QL World could be disastrous. There are also some other people, like Marcel Kilgus, who have put an enormous effort into SMSQ/E, and would like their efforts to be retibuted in some way. Others, such as Peter Graf, have invested much of their time and money to design hardware which is still being built and sold - if no coherent verson of SMSQ/E exists, then the effect on sales could also be disastrous. The above all implies that some incentive exists for people to a) maintain an offical registration b) pour more time into developments beneficial to all versions of SMSQ/E c) BUY the official distribution, to have something coherent and supported. This incentive can only result, in such a small world as ours, from some
RE: [ql-users] quiet
On 20 Mar 2002, at 14:18, Norman Dunbar wrote: It is a bit quiet isn't it ? Not anymore.. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Jochen Merz - Forwarded email
Jochen Merz wrote The idea was that the people involved would meet at Eindhoven next weekend and discuss matters, to see what can be done. I guess as you, Wolfgang, got everything going, we will meet you there too, won't we? ;-) Not sure. I'm having a dinner planned for that evening. I'll see what I can do... I did ask Tony whether I could release that info, he said yes. That's why it took me by surprise. A life without surprises isdull. The future status of SMSQ/E can be discussed there and a sensible decision can be made. And if SMSQ/E will become open source, we do have to find a reliable registrar, that's right. We can also discuss it here! The status of QPC, for example, won't change at all. Why not? And - it is SMSQ/E which could become open source, NOT drivers developed by others. So, Marcel, if you would like to help the QLers by producing an Aurora colour driver, go ahead and do so and it can be marketed. There is no reason why things need to/have to be for free. Personally, I think the important thing is that we have a coherent OS for ALL of the machines it runs on.! I wouldn't like a situation where QPC, or Q60, or Aurora or whatever has OS features that the others don't have. For me, the strength of the OS is that it is the SAME (hardware permitting) on all machines. If that is no longer the truth, I'll probably loose interest. (...) I would say that, in general, it is good to see the possibility of things improving somehow, although I doubt they will (and so does Tony) just because SMSQ/E may become open source. There is no doubt that an enormous amount of learning will be needed at first. (... ) The colour drivers exist for several years now - which application benefits from it? You see! Umm I beg to differ here. The colour drivers do exist, but they can't be used from within the PE. Most people I know write for the PE, so... In some circumstances, the additional colours do exist and are used. For example, I have an in-house database concerning my DVDs. I have recently changed that, so that it now shows the jackets. These have been scanned (under windows) and the software shows the original PC 256 colour bitmaps in part of the QL window. So, colours are getting used... I really hope that things get going faster again, and my feeling is that the modification which Marcel will do to the Window Manager as described some days ago may help getting more improvements than whether having an open source SMSQ/E or not. It's the drivers and applications, which are much more important!! Yes, but how much of the screen drivers (for example) is peculiar to each machine, and how much isn't? If one re-wrote the screen P.E screen driver traps and vectors, wouldn't all machines profit from this? And how would yu do that without the sources? But let's meet at Eindhoven next weekend and see what kind of reasonable solution can be found for SMSQ. The emphasis being on reasonable, I hope! Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] The future of SMSQ/E
On 12 Mar 2002, at 15:30, Claude Mourier 00 wrote: I'm affraid a Ferrari waiting outside is not faster than a Mitsubishi But it looks to be waiting faster... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] The future of SMSQ/E
On 12 Mar 2002, at 14:33, Marcel Kilgus wrote: I'm trying to tweak the code that is already there and do the stuff that just needs to be done. And I'm trying to involve you into the decisions I have to make as much as possible. Unfortunately not much feedback there so far. Marcel I've kept quiet through this discussion until now. I agree with Marcel, that we should start with small steps - AT LEAST THEY WILL GET DONE! What I'd like to do is have a look at the PE structures, to see what we can do with the existing code, to tweak it. For myself, I think that the QDOSMSQ/E character (it's fast) shuld be kept, even if it means that we don't get another window manager. If my memory is correct, most of the 'cosmetic' aspects (i.e. the window manager) are handled with vectors, whilst most of the underlying pointer and more basic operations are handled via traps (I'm simplifying here...). Ideally, then, we could write some new vectors, most probably on the basic of the old ones. This would means that all old programs would continue to function as they are, new programs could make use of the facilities, if they are there. The obvious problem there is one of copyright, because if we base the new vectors on the old ones, TT has his word to say. All I can say in this respect is that I did that once, quite some time ago, before the PE had timeouts in the pointer rad vector. I made a new vector based on the old one and a timer thing that I had written myelf. That actually was distributed with the first versions of FiFi (a thing called WLtimer). I had contacted TT, and he told me that that was absolutely no problem. Of course, I don't know what the situation would be if all of his vectors were copied but I could ask. I don't have the time right now, I'll look into that this weekend. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Hove Workshop
On 5 Mar 2002, at 9:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We will be releasing it soon after, and hope to do a NTSC and PAL version, in region 1 and 2 versions. Make it regionless - even better. It will have custom made menus and biographies of QL personalities, some funny moments, etc... will even put web links and some software on it too ;-) Anyone interested? ;-)) ONLY if you write a prog to read it on a QL! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] PCL3 printers
On 3 Mar 2002, at 18:45, Peter Fox wrote: Hi There, If anyone has an HP printer running PCL3, could they please let me know I have a printer driver for a PCL3 printer that works with QD and QSpread and would like someone to test it Hi Peter, I have an HP compatible printer, uses PCL 6 I'm successfully using the Laserjet4 printer driver under Prowess with it - so it does at least PCL4 I've also tried using it with Laserjet 2 drivers, and it work, too So it should work with PCL3 I'm quitewilling to test it Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Hove Workshop
On 24 Feb 2002, at 17:26, Tony Firshman wrote: Well yes. Docklands Light Railway failed on the press run! Mind you it has been very good every since. Maybe it used a QL - desperately trying to get OT. -- No, then it would have worked perfectly, of course! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Re: PIC/SCR Compression Sprites
On 19 Feb 2002, at 13:21, Jerome Grimbert wrote: Also, if you intend to foolishly use the same sprite structure, just changing the actual data (not the pointer, but the real data bytes), there is a cache mechanisms which may provide some debugging fun (NOT). Yup, which is why the log in the wall doesn't scroll in high colur mode... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] this list
On 7 Feb 2002, at 22:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! I couldn't read this list for 5 days or so, opened my email program, started downloading.. horror, shocks: almost 200 emails of [ql-users] mailing list. OK think positive, could be a good sign, ql world is alive. But then..Half of it full with off topic emails (mainly virus talking). Believe me, it's really hard work to work through all that emails that apparently don't belong there. The problem is, I basically like this list and I am interested in (and need) information about ql stuff, but on the other hand you have to pay a huge price / time (time _is_ _precious_) to find a little piece of ql information in the piles of off topic (OT) mails. OK, I've kept quiet on this on/off topic duscussion until now. I can understand if people feel muffed by on off topic discussion - this is a QL group, after all. However, if we take Claus' example - there were 200 emails, half of themm (actually, I presumed at least 75% of them) full of off topic (and, to me, uninteresting) stuff - so let's say, 150 off topic emails. It takes me about 2 seconds to read the 1st sentence of an email, notice that it is off topic and go to the next one- so I've lost 300 seconds (5 minutes) in a 5 days period. Is that really so much? Yes, I'm annoyed that so much bandwidth is taken up with OT discussion - but most of us go OT at one stage or another, so live and let live, huh? Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] Virus
On 5 Feb 2002, at 8:23, Norman Dunbar wrote: Geoff wrote : I noticed when defragging my hard disk. I got a message that defragging was being restarted because the disk contents had changed. That could only be a virus! To get this discussion on topic again, what about a defragger for a QXL.WIN file? Mind you, with the salve blocks, it's probably not fragmentation that's slowing everything down (launches this hurtful subject again). Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] win format
On 29 Jan 2002, at 1:06, Roy Wood wrote: In message 3C5592E5.2964.1E98374@localhost, Wolfgang Lenerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi all, Neitherut wanted some info on the qxl.wion file format. Perhaps the znclosed filz will help. I'm sorry, I can't remember where I got this info, so I can't give credit where it is due. Were you drunk when you wrote this ? Not more than usaul... (ha!) Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] coulours on SMSQ
On 24 Feb 2001, at 16:16, Dilwyn Jones wrote: There's so many of these useful bits of OS information which exist, but seem to be covered by an unofficial QL 'official secrets act' -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html I don't agree with that description - everything you need is in the Manual. OK, that manual is NOT free, but is sold by Jochen Merz. But, seeing the work that jas been put in it, I can't balme him for that (and the peice IS reasonable). Wolfgang
