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] Source Code Status
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:34:31AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (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. don't say it will be open source then - it won't. Forget those who have seen this as a great chance for SMSQ. I don't say it has to be GPL, but this doesn't make it. 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. 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. Richard
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] Source Code Status
Wolfgang, even though there have been astonishingly few reactions so far. Probably shock ! TT allows SMSQ to go 'open' - it shocked me ! Of course, I take that as full approval of what been done You have my approval. Hopefully, when you get sorted out, I'll be sending off my IRC 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. Good luck. Regards, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:39:27 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Following the discussions at EIndhoven,here is what has been agreed upon, Tony TEBBY also having agreed to it: In short: In short this is GREAT NEWS ! :-)) Finally, I would like to add a personal note: A - 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. Open software is not an aim it itself. I see the openning of the SMSQ/E sources as the key survival of this wonderful OS, the fact that some restrictions (particularly style related ones) are put on it is, as far as I am concerned, a GOOD THING ! 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 restriction on the copyright. I HOPE you can agree with this. 100% agreed ! B - I have been appointed as the registrar (more by default than anything else). I will try to fulfil that role as well as possible. As I have already stated in this list, my main aim is to make sure that we have coherent versions for all machines. There will always be locomotives, i.e. people doing something new for one version of SMSQ/E, which will then also be applied, hardware permitting, to other versions. However, I can not do that work (alone). I NEED the help of some of you (who will be key developers for one machine) so that they can implement the necessary changes (if any) for each specific machine. Thus I make a PLEA for volunteers. Obviously, for SMSQ/E running on QPC, Marcel KILGUS will be the key developer. For SMSQ/E on Q60/Q40, the obvious persons would be Claus and Peter GRAF (yes, I know, I'm trying to twist your arm here, Claus and Peter :-) and perhaps also Jerôme GRIMBERT (?)). You can add me to this list. :-) What about the other machines? Anybody out there interested: QXL (Thierry Godefroy?) Why not ? Although my programming efforts will be mainly turned towards the Q60, now... Aurora ? SuperGoldCard ? I got Aurora+SGC, so here again, I could help... Thanks, Wolf, Jochen, Roy and of course TT for making this dream come true ! QDOS/SMS forever ! Thierry. 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 !)...
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 at 08:01:22, Jerome Grimbert wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read } I have understood the bit about no charge in giving copies. As someone } running a PD library I'll mention here I'm happy to adhere strictly by } this. } I was surprised that media/post costs were vetoed I must admit. } Surely that is a bit of an imposition on the sender. Well, I was not part of the discussion, but I can understand some reasons for the veto. For instance, the QLCF library has been running along similar lines: - the requestor must provide both the media and stamped return package. That is what I was thinking of almost exactly, but I couldn't see mention of that. It was Wolfgang's longest ever email so apologies if I missed it. Outside ones own country, IRCs have to be used which is 'payment' of a sort - but in stamps. Surely no problem with this? -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname,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] Source Code Status
Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read } Outside ones own country, IRCs have to be used which is 'payment' of a } sort - but in stamps. } Surely no problem with this? Probably not any problem, as long as it does not appear on the accounting system and thus leave no trace for the tax people ... and the usage of IRC seems pretty evident, so alegation of 'substantial income' via IRC would be rather easy to turn down (at least they can be put in the small allowed % of error.)
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
I have understood the bit about no charge in giving copies. As someone running a PD library I'll mention here I'm happy to adhere strictly by this. I was surprised that media/post costs were vetoed I must admit. Surely that is a bit of an imposition on the sender. Not really, the circumstances of SMSQ/E were a bit special, in order to protect the position of Roy, Jochen and Tony. We had to secure this position for the best future of the OS...and if this is a little something we had to concede then so be it. SMSQ/E needs a co-ordinater and the support provided by the likes of Roy and Jochen. This is not unique in the computer world, you pay (small amounts in this case compared to the outside world in many cases!) for the software and get support for it. After all, there is nothing to stop people sending a CD+ready stamped return envelope to the supplier concerned so that NO MONEY changes hands at all, in effect all that changes hands is the time of the person who does the copying. Which is what real freeware and PD is about I suppose. I'm very happy with the deal and hope others will support Wolfgang and the others concerned in securing this situation. I doubt we could have got to the totally free Linux type setup and in a small community like ours this deal may actually be better for us! -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 06:39:27AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Following the discussions at EIndhoven,here is what has been agreed upon, Tony TEBBY also having agreed to it: In short: Whilst Tony Tebby will retain copyright over the code, anyone may have a copy of the 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 == as far as I could understand the statements I am not sure whether it is allowed to give away SMSQ in binary form (whether or not acompanied by sources), can you please clarify this? This might be of great interest for HW vendors who want release testing versions for new HW quickly. Btw anyone who would maintain a mirror of the code on some public CVS server? I could do it on Sourceforge but somewhat doubt that they will accept this copyright. Bye Richard
RE: [ql-users] Source Code Status
Put me down as a 'designated copier' - if you need any more. Regards, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 1:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status This is a valid point. I propose we appoint designated copiers who have agreed to copy the source files on CD for whoever wants them. they could liase with the registrar to maintain the up to date copies. I for one would be willing to do this, and sounds like Dilwyn would too. We both have CD-rewriters. This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
Jerome Grimbert wrote: Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read } Outside ones own country, IRCs have to be used which is 'payment' of a } sort - but in stamps. } Surely no problem with this? Probably not any problem, In my area of the US nobody has any idea what IRCs are. The post office doesn't have them. The banks haven't heard of them. They are not available in central Illinois. I guess the borders are just too far away to have need for such a device. This has been an inconvenience and will be in the future if required. If we want the QL system to move into the future, why not use the internet to deliver software like the rest of the world? Lafe McCorkle as long as it does not appear on the accounting system and thus leave no trace for the tax people ... and the usage of IRC seems pretty evident, so alegation of 'substantial income' via IRC would be rather easy to turn down (at least they can be put in the small allowed % of error.)
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
At 10:21 ðì 26/3/2002, you wrote: Jerome Grimbert wrote: Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read } Outside ones own country, IRCs have to be used which is 'payment' of a } sort - but in stamps. } Surely no problem with this? Probably not any problem, In my area of the US nobody has any idea what IRCs are. The post office doesn't have them. The banks haven't heard of them. IRCs are not Banking units, they are Postal means of international reply (Kind of a COD but only for the value of the postage) They are not available in central Illinois. I guess the borders are just too far away to have need for such a device. This has been an inconvenience and will be in the future if required. As I said too, International Reply Coupons are not available in my post office too and I am not sure if they are at all in the US. (Although with the USPS being a chartered member of the UPU (Union Postale Universelle) I don't see why it shouldn't (Then again we have a habit here in the US to withdraw from treaties that are not convenient anymore ;- See ABM, Tokyo etc ;-) If we want the QL system to move into the future, why not use the internet to deliver software like the rest of the world? This won't be a problem either as explained elsewhere. Lafe McCorkle as long as it does not appear on the accounting system and thus leave no trace for the tax people ... and the usage of IRC seems pretty evident, so alegation of 'substantial income' via IRC would be rather easy to turn down (at least they can be put in the small allowed % of error.) The way IRCs work,it is evident to the sender as a notice is posted on the return letter (when IRCs are used). (At least that's what happens in Greece). This way you have an additional check on the distributor's honesty :-) (Not implying anything by that of course... just clarifying the issue)
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 26 Mar 2002, at 12:25, Richard Zidlicky wrote: as far as I could understand the statements I am not sure whether it is allowed to give away SMSQ in binary form (whether or not acompanied by sources), can you please clarify this? This might be of great interest for HW vendors who want release testing versions for new HW quickly. No, compiled versions can only be obtained via the official resellers. HW vendors have to get a licence now, too.. The quick testing of new code is a very valid concern. However, even on the Q60/Q40, you can LRESPR SMSQ/E, so testing can be done extensively before blowing EPROMS. Btw anyone who would maintain a mirror of the code on some public CVS server? NO! I could do it on Sourceforge but somewhat doubt that they will accept this copyright. Neither would I accept Soundforge. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
Wolfgang - Roughly how big are the entire source files in Kb/Mb? (Just curious) i don't have them yet... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wolfgang - Roughly how big are the entire source files in Kb/Mb? (Just curious) Rough values: 1800 source files. 2,5 MB zipped. 5,5 MB extracted. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
marcel wrote:- Rough values: 1800 source files. 2,5 MB zipped. 5,5 MB extracted. Marcel Thanks Marcel. Not a really big job then to make a few floppies for the distro, although a CD/Superdisk/Zip disk would be a better alternative... Even the 2.5Mb zipped file would fit split across two floppies. Cheers, Darren. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete this E-mail from your system. Thank you. It is possible for data transmitted by email to be deliberately or accidentally corrupted or intercepted. For this reason, where the communication is by email, the Bank of Ireland Group does not accept any responsibility for any breach of confidence which may arise through the use of this medium. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of known computer viruses.
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
In message 3C9EC61F.3028.A3898@localhost, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi all, Following the discussions at EIndhoven,here is what has been agreed upon, Tony TEBBY also having agreed to it BIG SNIP : Wolfgang Well laid out and expressed Wolfgang. One thing you did not mention was that a proportion of the sale price of the official version will still go to TT because we all thought that he deserved it not because he asked for it. I would like to say that, for myself and Q Branch, I think this is a very good development and one we should all embrace. I hope it will lead to further expansion of both the system and the user base. I would also hope that we can cease this fruitless competition between systems. All different systems which run a form of SMSQ/E have both advantages and disadvantages. I am very aware of this because I run three different ones here. Trying to shave a few milliseconds off a benchmark is a fairly pointless and boy-racer mentality. Extending SMSQ/E to use the colour drivers better, improve disk access, improve cache handling etc. is of more importance. I look forward to some innovative ideas and a brighter future. -- 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
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 06:22:53PM +0100, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: On 26 Mar 2002, at 12:25, Richard Zidlicky wrote: as far as I could understand the statements I am not sure whether it is allowed to give away SMSQ in binary form (whether or not acompanied by sources), can you please clarify this? This might be of great interest for HW vendors who want release testing versions for new HW quickly. 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. The quick testing of new code is a very valid concern. However, even on the Q60/Q40, you can LRESPR SMSQ/E, so testing can be done extensively before blowing EPROMS. blowing an EPROM is a matter of minutes, this is not the concern. However some software may need testing with the broadest available range of devices.. often by people who can't be bothered to compile SMSQ themselves. So lets imagine we stick with the official route, each little untested fix has to go to you, you may or may not choose to incorporate it and release a new official version where we would really need a test build, then either Jochen or Roy have the joy to send this update to whoever has the actual device to test it. The effectivity of this approach is really overwhelming. As we have seen with Thierry's CD driver this cycle may need a certain number of iterations before most hardware is functional with the new driver. The CD driver itself is not a good example because it can be conveniently lrespr'd but we may hit devices which must be initialised much earlier in the boot proces so this won't work always. Quite frankly I don't understand this silly restriction, it will only add headaches to you and the official distributors. 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 ?;). 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. Don't loose the real problems out of view, you will see it soon enough. Btw anyone who would maintain a mirror of the code on some public CVS server? NO! I could do it on Sourceforge but somewhat doubt that they will accept this copyright. Neither would I accept 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. Bye Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 at 12:15:47, Phoebus Dokos wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) The way IRCs work,it is evident to the sender as a notice is posted on the return letter (when IRCs are used). (At least that's what happens in Greece). This way you have an additional check on the distributor's honesty :-) (Not implying anything by that of course... just clarifying the issue) Not in the UK - you get stamps to the equivalent of an overseas letter. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname,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] Source Code Status
As one of the Pacific Time Zone QLer's, I get to be late to the conversations, but at least I can have a try at the final word. 3/ No distribution of SMSQ/E may be SOLD, except for for the official distribution. This interdiction includes that of including and distibuting SMSQ/E in Public 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. A strict interpretation of the above would allow anybody to give the source and/or binary version of SMSQ/E as long as no money changed hands. The part of not including it in an PD libraries would not prevent any person-to-person transfers. I think the above statement is very badly worded. I sort of understand the idea behind the statement, but there are logic holes that I could fit a Mac truck through (or Lorry for you non-American speakers). 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. 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. 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. G - Is anyone interested in doing a nice documentation package? So many people out there have protested about no documentation being available. NOW is your chance to make a contribution. 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. Anyhow, I've read the formal statement, and I've read a lot of the feedback today on the statement and I don't see a lot of the issues that others saw. Somebody make a comment about not being able to distribute binary copies of SMSQ/E, esp. if they compiled them. I don't see that in the above statement. Only a restriction on SELLING copies (both source and binary). The statement seriously needs to be revised before those Mac trucks come rolling through. I spent the last Fall re-writing By-Laws for a local non-profit, that was reviewed by the press and the City Attorney. I'm good at catching loop holes and making sure they don't exist (kind of like preventing bugs in code). As is, the above mentioned statement is fairly weak and contains statements that will not stand up in court. I'd highly recommend that it be reviewed by the registrar, TT, and any others. I really does not accomplish what it sets out to do. So until the statement changes, I don't think any one has anything to worry about. Tim Swenson
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
Wolfgang Lenerz 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. 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? F - Time (or lack of it). It will be a few months before the entire code will be given to me, digested and recompiled etc. Please be patient. Good luck! John -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
Following the discussions at EIndhoven,here is what has been agreed upon, Tony TEBBY also having agreed to it: 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. I HOPE you can agree with this. I KNOW some of you will not. I have understood the bit about no charge in giving copies. As someone running a PD library I'll mention here I'm happy to adhere strictly by this. I HAVE donned my flameproof vest... No need I am sure... I suspect you'll get more 'hate mail' for the length of the email not the content ;-) (says he having just virtually taken over Quanta newsletter with a single review and been reminded of the fact by at least a dozen readers so far) Is anyone interested in doing a nice documentation package? So many people out there have protested about no documentation being available. NOW is your chance to make a contribution. 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. Don't forget the Sinclair manual is available for download on my website for anyone wanting to use this as the basis of a new manual, beware of copyright status on this though, as I'm not sure where you'd stand modifying a copyrighted text even though it's allowed to be freely distributed.
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 at 15:29:17, Dilwyn Jones wrote: (ref: 004001c1ce91$d33f3800$33065cc3@default) Following the discussions at EIndhoven,here is what has been agreed upon, Tony TEBBY also having agreed to it: 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. I HOPE you can agree with this. I KNOW some of you will not. I have understood the bit about no charge in giving copies. As someone running a PD library I'll mention here I'm happy to adhere strictly by this. I was surprised that media/post costs were vetoed I must admit. Surely that is a bit of an imposition on the sender. -- 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] 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
Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read } I have understood the bit about no charge in giving copies. As someone } running a PD library I'll mention here I'm happy to adhere strictly by } this. } I was surprised that media/post costs were vetoed I must admit. } Surely that is a bit of an imposition on the sender. Well, I was not part of the discussion, but I can understand some reasons for the veto. For instance, the QLCF library has been running along similar lines: - the requestor must provide both the media and stamped return package. The reason might concern the income tax of the Librarian: - if the requestor make a payement to the librarian, the income of the librarian grows. Which mean more taxes for the librarian. Therefore, the taxes should be reported to the requestor, but why would a requestor pays the librarian's income tax ? (Ok, if you want, you can pay all my income tax, you are very welcome...). - Sending cash is forbidden by the postal rules here. - Sending unlabelled cheque is dangerous (the librarian could not label it to the seller of media, but might label it to Tresor Public, which is the tax collector. But paying income tax with a lot of small cheques is rather strange and may be not welcome by the tax people...) So, avoiding any money transaction is the best thing. And as a requestor, I know exactly where my money goes: back to me. (because I got back the media, and the parcel... even if the postal service destroy the value of the stamps!)
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] Source Code Status
[skipping a very long message] [EMAIL PROTECTED] makes some magical things to make me read } Thus I make a PLEA for volunteers. Obviously, for SMSQ/E running on QPC, Marcel } KILGUS will be the key developer. } For SMSQ/E on Q60/Q40, the obvious persons would be Claus and Peter GRAF (yes, I know, } I'm trying to twist your arm here, Claus and Peter :-) and perhaps also Jerôme GRIMBERT (?)). } No need to twist my arms, I will gladly help. I've been kept busy with non-Q40 programming lately, but I really enjoy this platform (at least for the real 'instant-ready-on-power-on!', which is a thing I really appreciate early in the morning, just before leaving, to be able to quickly make a floppy). } } E - } There will always be a lag of time between one feature coming out on one version of SMSQ/E } and then being ported to the other versions. } I shall strive to keep this lag as small as possible, but I feel that it is not such a } good idea to penalise the one version having the new feature by waiting for all } of the other versions to have it. } 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. -- Grimbert Jérôme
