In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
=?iso-8859-7?B?IlBob2VidXMgUi4gRG9rb3MgKNbv3+Lv8iDRLiDN9Pzq7/IpIg==?=
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 19:38:59 +0100, Roy wood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On 16 Oct 2003 at 9:57, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor
On 16 Oct 2003 at 9:57, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Above statement is formally credited as Copyright (C) Roy Wood
sometime in the last 3 years :o
- Original Message -
From: Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor
Now...should that be license or licence??? Can never remember which is
verb, which is noun :o/
It depends on whether you are American or English. Sorry, can't
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor
On 16 Oct 2003 at 9:57, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Above statement is formally credited as Copyright (C) Roy Wood
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On 16 Oct 2003 at 9:57, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Above statement is formally credited as Copyright (C) Roy Wood
sometime in the last 3 years :o|
Do you think Roy would ... licence it?
Wolfgang
No, it is open source !
--
Roy Wood
Q Branch. 20
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 19:38:59 +0100, Roy wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On 16 Oct 2003 at 9:57, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Above statement is formally credited as Copyright (C) Roy Wood
sometime in the last 3 years :o|
Do you think Roy would ...
Do I hear the sound of rattles being thrown out of prams once more,
children?
Hey, I got told off when I said that !
--
Roy Wood
I remember it being said first time round, couldn't remember who said
it. Thought it might be worth throwing into the melting pot once more.
Above statement is
On 16 Oct 2003 at 9:57, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Above statement is formally credited as Copyright (C) Roy Wood
sometime in the last 3 years :o|
Do you think Roy would ... licence it?
Wolfgang
On 14 Oct 2003 at 18:44, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Do I hear the sound of rattles being thrown out of prams once more,
children?
rattle, rattle
For goodness's sake, bury the hatchets now (and I don't mean in each
other's heads).
grin
This is rapidly turning into another all too public
On 14 Oct 2003 at 14:52, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
Oh, excuse-me, but I'm only using (and developping it too) on Q40.
I won't call that a waste!
No, it isn't, of course not.
Wolfgang
On 14 Oct 2003 at 12:06, Fabrizio Diversi wrote:
Again,
It should be clear that I am not an expert on this matter , i do not have any
special expertise .
Perhaps - but at least you TRY (and succeed) to do something with the sources.
Just one think , I have as my hobby to play with QL and
On 14 Oct 2003 at 20:28, Tarquin Mills wrote:
(...)
I like the QL because it (the QL community) is in general polite and
friendly.
Yes, that's true - and it makes the occasional storm only stand out that much
stronger.
But, always the optimist, I hope that this might clear the air for a
On 14 Oct 2003 at 19:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
Forget this idea. I never sold nor trusted Q60 SMSQ/E versions after Tony Tebby.
I can understand that you didn't sell any.
But not trust any newer version?
Do you mean there are, what, timebombs in the code?
Somebody, on purpose,
Forwarded answer from Peter to my last mail, posted with his
agreement. I leave it at that.
---
Marcel wrote:
But if I asked for the Qx0 schematics (the equivalent of my software
in the hardware world), would you give them to me?
Yes of course, as soon as my turnover breaks even with my
On 15 Oct 2003 at 10:29, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
That implies the rattle is still in your hand and not yet been thrown,
right?
No, it's the echo.
(...)
This IS a subject that affects many (perhaps even all) of us.
As long as something constructive comes out of it (e.g. agreement on
updated
Roy wood wrote:
There were one or two teething problems when the code changed to
incorporate the faster memory but there were in the original code
and just shown up by the new code. (That is right isn't it Marcel?).
If you're referring to the RECHP problem you're right, I suspect the
problem
On 14 Oct 2003 at 3:13, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
(...)
Yes, if I was motivated by $$$ I would have left the scene several
years ago, I'd have to sell at least 1 QPC per hour to really make it
commercially viable for me. But writing computer software is my only
income and therefore I must somehow
On 13 Oct 2003 at 23:11, Peter Graf wrote:
Well and we felt we walked 100 miles toward a compromise while you didn't
move an inch.
Fortunately enough, then, the amendments to the licence, in reply to
your requests (and those of others) have been done publicly, in this
forum, so I'll let
On 13 Oct 2003 at 21:35, John Taylor wrote:
Mutual admiration societies achieve nothing.
There are differences of opinion in almost all aspects of QL computing.
The 'licence' is just one of them. Long may this continue.
All we have to do is just keep pushing.
Perhaps, though, some
On 13 Oct 2003 at 15:58, Phoebus R. Dokos (è á. ç) wrote:
As for Wolfgang's comments I would respectfully disagree.
Well, at least we can agree to disagree :-).
As I said
earlier it's anyone's choice how much they value their principles. Maybe
Peter (and I do not speak for him
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This lack of common ground seems to stem from the fact that you prefer
to profit from
developments made for other systems (eg. Marcel's new wman etc) and not
chip in
anything of your own.
I never used any version of SMSQ/E after those from Tony Tebby, so
On 14 Oct 2003 at 10:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
Most Q60 users??? AFAIKS the number of Q60 users who requested _upgrade_
of SMSQ/E binaries to _your_ versions is ZERO in about one and a half
year. Which proves total failure of your only through reseller concept.
Sure SMSQ/E is
Again,
It should be clear that I am not an expert on this matter , i do not have any special expertise .
Just one think , I have as my "hobby" to play with QL and its derivatives.
I bought a QL in '84, then I boughteverything related to it : egGoldCard, QXl etc etc . I have all the emulator etc,
Most Q60 users??? AFAIKS the number of Q60 users who requested _upgrade_
of SMSQ/E binaries to _your_ versions is ZERO in about one and a half
year. Which proves total failure of your only through reseller concept.
Sure SMSQ/E is still used on most Q60, but this is for 99% an achievement
of
SMSQ makes some magical things to make me read
} Sure SMSQ/E is still used on most Q60, but this is for 99% an achievement
} of Tony Tebby and not your new facilities.
}
} Well, if that is REALLY the case, then both you two, Marcel and
} Wolfgang, completely wasted your time for the last 1
Jerome Grimbert wrote:
SMSQ makes some magical things to make me read
} Sure SMSQ/E is still used on most Q60, but this is for 99% an achievement
} of Tony Tebby and not your new facilities.
}
} Well, if that is REALLY the case, then both you two, Marcel and
} Wolfgang, completely wasted your
Jerome Grimbert wrote:
Oh, excuse-me, but I'm only using (and developping it too) on Q40.
I won't call that a waste!
Of course not. It's not Jochen who actually suggested that NO Qx0 user
uses the new SMSQ/E. If that was the case, we could really have saved
a lot of time. Obviously this
Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Well, Peter sells hardware, of course he wouldn't mind the software
being totally free.
I never asked for SMSQ/E to be free of charge for me, or to indirectly
reduce overall Q60 costs, as you seem to allude. As a matter of fact, I
had offered compensation for Tony Tebby
and Marcel, Tony, Jochen, Wolfgang and all with the OS. That's all
we needed to know.
--
Dilwyn Jones
- Original Message -
From: SMSQ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor
Most Q60
Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Jerome Grimbert wrote:
Oh, excuse-me, but I'm only using (and developping it too) on Q40.
I won't call that a waste!
Of course not. It's not Jochen who actually suggested that NO Qx0 user
uses the new SMSQ/E. If that was the case, we could really have saved
a lot
Phoebus Dokos wrote:
As revealed and by Geoff's long article publicised here a little while
ago, rifts and factions are plaguing the QL community for a long time.
Please can someone email off list with details of the disagreement in 1996.
As to the argument, I think this argument (free v
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, Peter sells hardware, of course he wouldn't mind the software
being totally free.
I never asked for SMSQ/E to be free of charge for me, or to indirectly
reduce overall Q60 costs, as you seem to allude.
In no way I wanted to imply that you are a cheapskate or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course not. It's not Jochen who actually suggested that NO Qx0 user
uses the new SMSQ/E. If that was the case, we could really have saved
a lot of time. Obviously this assertion is, to speak plainly, rubbish.
So read _exactly_ what I wrote, before using nice words.
On 11 Oct 2003 at 23:17, Peter Graf wrote:
(...)
Q60 Successor:
(...)
After the departure of Tony Tebby,
I see no basis for projects like this anymore, because there's no common ground
with the new SMSQ/E maintainers,
Well of course not, you never tried to find one.
and at the same
Fabrizio Diversi makes some magical things to make me read
} Just a thought about what a pity,( I am now in the lunch break...)
} one year later after sms/e sources new license, and for a lot of reason that I do
not understand (!!) nothing was done on the Q40 side, not because missing of
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:48:32 +0200 (MET DST), Jerome Grimbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fabrizio Diversi makes some magical things to make me read
} Just a thought about what a pity,( I am now in the lunch break...)
} one year later after sms/e sources new license, and for a lot of
reason that
Well I think that this whole discussion is an overkill. We did it before
but it may be useful to see things a little more removed from the heat now
:-)
Phoebus
Mutual admiration societies achieve nothing.
There are differences of opinion in almost all aspects of QL computing.
The 'licence'
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:35:50 +0100, John Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well I think that this whole discussion is an overkill. We did it before
but it may be useful to see things a little more removed from the heat
now
:-)
Phoebus
Mutual admiration societies achieve nothing.
There are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11 Oct 2003 at 23:17, Peter Graf wrote:
(...)
Q60 Successor:
(...)
After the departure of Tony Tebby,
I see no basis for projects like this anymore, because there's no
common ground
with the new SMSQ/E maintainers,
Well of course not, you never tried to find
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:41:37 +0200, Marcel Kilgus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Nobody is stopping anybody from releasing a piece of code under 2
licenses.
That is not possible under any legal agreement. It's other one or the
other especially for GPL style licenses as the premise is so
Phoebus R. Dokos (F??ß?? ?. ?t) wrote:
That is not possible under any legal agreement. It's other one or the
other especially for GPL style licenses as the premise is so different
that it is impossible to do so.
I can release my software under any number of licences I chose to do.
I can
Hi Geoff,
USB:
Same old question. It would be feasible to develop an USB hardware add-on
for Q40/Q60. USB host controllers with simple bus interfaces are available,
a card that fits into a Q60 extension slot or maybe ROM socket is not a
very
hard design challenge. Nevertheless I won't make
Hi,
a short comeback to this list for a few infos. Sorry if I don't stay too long, I
usually
don't have the time to deal with the amount of traffic here.
Quite often I receive questions about the mentioned subjects. So maybe it's good to
clarify a few things for a wider audience.
QLwIP, what
43 matches
Mail list logo
