On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 11:41:44PM +0100, Tony Firshman wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 at 11:52:28, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
(ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:03:03AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard
Zidlicky[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
SNIP
Richard Zidlicky writes:
it will break when harddisks are accessed in LBA instead of CHS mode.
That is interesting. I thought Tony Tebby had always intended that the
SMSQ code could be LRESPRed.
you can allways lrespr it from floppy. Keeping HD full backwards
compatible
with current
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
SNIP
(A useful purpose for a ROM bootloader might be to search for available
OSes on the hard disk and offer a simple menu for selecting which one to
boot.)
Per
This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and
may
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 at 09:21:32, Bill Waugh wrote:
(ref: 003201c21a8f$027d3240$eaf47ad5@famwaugh)
- Original Message -
Now not (8-)#
From: Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Lets
Tony Firshman wrote:
I am not talking about boot speed but running speed - that is certainly
worth the extra boot time.
The first thing all versions of SMSQ/E do is copying themselves to
some RAM location anyway. I.e. there is no waste of memory when
loading SMSQ/E from disc.
Marcel
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:03:03AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard
Zidlicky[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
SNIP
Absolutely not. If you are building hardware you can't simply provide
the user with an official SMSQ version in EPROM and a patch on a floppy
disk and
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 at 11:52:28, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
(ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:03:03AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard
Zidlicky[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
SNIP
Absolutely not. If you are building hardware you can't simply provide
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 at 12:38:59, Mike MacNamara wrote:
(ref: 00ab01c2184f$12b9e190$c272893e@macnamarxmjd3y)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.macnamaras.com
- Original Message -
From: Jochen Merz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ql
Jochen wrote:
Loading the OS from (slow access) EPROM to (fast access) RAM
is of benefit.
Yep, and it takes just a memory copy from ROM to RAM, which the OS can
apply to itself at startup.
BTW the Q60 with its 32 bit wide ROM bus isn't much slower than RAM.
SMSQ/E is so small, that the speed
- Original Message -
From: Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 at 12:38:59, Mike MacNamara wrote:
(ref: 00ab01c2184f$12b9e190$c272893e@macnamarxmjd3y)
[EMAIL
Mike MacNamara writes:
I almost agree Tony, I think RomDisq is great, BUT, I can
remember phoning you to find out if I could recover my files
after I had tried many times without success, but then succeeded,
in crashing the Romdisq.. After reloading its 'works', it of
course was blank,
In a message dated 17/06/02 23:35:39 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
cut
The problem here is that it does fragment the community - I see nothing in
the current licence which prevents giving the binaries away for nothing,
provided that the 10 Euro fee is still paid to TT for
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 07:43:36AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you and Peter please highlight the clause in the licence which prevents
copies of SMSQ.E binaries being given away or updates given at nil cost (I
seem to have lost my copy of the licence ahhh!). So far as I read it,
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 12:19:47AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Zidlicky
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
The problem here is that it does fragment the community - I see nothing in
the current licence which prevents giving the binaries away for nothing,
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 10:34:02AM +0200, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:26:20PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Richard Zidlicky wrote:
You can have free 'Open Source' code and Richard et al will write for it
and Marcel and a few others will quit
Did you ask
Richard Zidlicky wrote:
so I assume Roy was also correct when he claimed that it was agreed
not to take any additional roylaties for SMSQ beyound the 10 Euro
for TT.
still missing the answer to this question.
For the SMSQ as it is available now this is true, yes.
Marcel
OK, time to put in my teo-penneth worth.
This discussion/arguing needs to be brought to a swift end - it is in danger of not only fragmenting the whole QL scene even further, but putting people off the QL, SMSQ/E and this email list at a time when we all need to band together.
We do not need to
In a message dated 15/06/02 12:39:54 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Rich,
a specific proposal has already been put forward to Wolfgang many weeks
ago. It was a small exception for Qx0 in the license, which was to allow
free public distribution of the official Qx0 binaries,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:26:20PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Richard Zidlicky wrote:
You can have free 'Open Source' code and Richard et al will write for it
and Marcel and a few others will quit
Did you ask Marcel?
He knows my opinion quite well, yes. And what he wrote is true.
On 11 Jun 2002, at 16:34, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
(snip - mostly of the GPL licence - you have your understanding, I
have mine)
Whoa there.
Would those who do these bad and evil things please step
forward.
Hmmm - nobody? How strange.
really funny that, but aren't you
On 11 Jun 2002, at 22:21, Peter Graf wrote:
Obvously not knowing he GPL.
I'm afraid that the discussion about GPL (and whether I know it or
not) will lead us too far astray. Let's just say that I will abide by my
opinion on it.
(snip)
Do you really see what you are accusing me?
Hey
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:44:29AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm afraid that the discussion about GPL (and whether I know it or
not) will lead us too far astray. Let's just say that I will abide by my
opinion on it.
you do not have
On 13 Jun 2002, at 14:11, Richard Zidlicky replying to an email
in reply to Peter Graf wrote:
I'm afraid that the discussion about GPL (and whether I know it or
not) will lead us too far astray. Let's just say that I will abide
by my opinion on it.
you do not have an opinion on it.
On 13 Jun 2002, at 14:23, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
(...)
Did you ask Marcel? I don't see that he could suffer any kind
of disadvantage with GPL.. he is probably the last one who needs
to worry about GPL. He can suffer some inconvenience with this
license.
I did not ask Marcel specifically.
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
However strange it may seem to you, TT himself would allow Open Source.
No.
Don't try to spread this legend, you're in opposition to your own mails.
Also Tony Tebby himself wrote me, that you proposed Open Source. He even
asked me if not the Linux model would be
: Thursday, June 13, 2002 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Just to crystalise the issue, what exactly are you losing under the
proposed revised license? I can see what you'd gain (access to the
source,
ability to contribute to SMSQ's source directly, etc) but what do you
lose
Open source is not only GPL, so if my GPL idea was not what Tony Tebby had
in mind, this does nowhere mean that he would not have allowed Open Source.
However I will wait for his answer, to see clearer.
and delay it even more ... then Wolfgang needs to reply back ...
and so on. You
As for your compromise: what I read out of the mails was, that
some Q40/Q60 programmers would only work under GPL. Fine, thats
what they DEMAND, but where's the compromise? Maybe I'm wrong,
but it is pointless anyway as it will not become GPL -
Wolfgang said this quite clearly several mails
Aha, now we get to know the Merz way of compromise:
Accept it or leave it.
Thanks for making your attitude that clear
Aha - you just joined the group, haven't you?
Just like your brother: pick parts out of the
context, twist it
but then think about SMSQ/Es being sold with Q40/Q60s.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 02:17:11PM +, Dave P wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:56:31AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote:
No licence is set in stone (as Steve Hall remarked to me on the day
before I left for the US show) and you can always
Can this appalling discussion now come to an end, please? I am not
prepared to evaluate any argument, however just, that is couched in such
grotesque terms as we have witnessed in recent days and weeks. There is
absolutely no value in such dialogue, and no one should allow themselves
be goaded
On 14 Jun 2002, at 2:34, P Witte wrote:
Can this appalling discussion now come to an end, please?
I am not
prepared to evaluate any argument, however just, that is couched in
such grotesque terms as we have witnessed in recent days and weeks.
There is absolutely no value in such
Peter Graf wrote:
Jochen Merz wrote:
Wolfgang is doing all this in good faith, I'm sure, and I am also
sure that he may be willing to change if it becomes clear that
things don't work the way they were planned to work (hoping
that it is not deliberately sabotaged).
Who
Joachim van der Auwera
wrote:
Ok, what if TT can not be
reached or found (or
worse) ? Or he has no time
or does not know anybody
fit for the job...
What if the amount of code
added is such that he is a
co-author, and not the
main author?
How can you expect people
to write free code
Well said, Wolfgang, applause.
Back from a very nice QL show in the USA, a few words from me:
First of all, I'd say: leave the license as it is now else
you will never get a result.
You have asked for opinions and you have, in my opinion, adjusted
the license so that it should suit most
Richard wrote:
--
Why Wolfgang doesn't take GPL is beyond me. This license has
not onlytheoretical problems and Wolfgang is assuming much
more responsibility than he seems to want.
--
True - the responsibility is higher than I thought initially. However, if
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
Richard wrote:
I will NEVER agree to GPL. Under GPL, as soon as you use the
tiniest little bit of something GPL'd, you HAVE to make your
code GPL, too.
you have obviously not even looked at GPL but only read some anti-GPL
fud
Jochen Merz wrote:
It is impossible to please anybody anyway, and I think you
have worked out a good compromise.
As far as Q60 is concerned, all compromise proposals were turned down.
Not only mine. Also those from well-known impartial persons.
Of course, if there's somebody who ONLY wants it
At 05:09 PM 6/11/2002 +0100, you wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
Richard wrote:
I will NEVER agree to GPL. Under GPL, as soon as you use the
tiniest little bit of something GPL'd, you HAVE to make your
code GPL, too.
Hmmm?
My understanding, as an open source
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Hi all,
Ok, I've gone away and started to draft the licence. I think it's
time
to go forward - because this is now the only
As far as I can see, this license means that each time a binary copy is
passed on by the resellers, the fee for 10 EUR is to be paid to TT...
If that is not what is intended (and that is what it seemed like before),
then I think this has to be made explicit.
Joachim
41 matches
Mail list logo
