On 8 Nov 2002, at 22:21, Malcolm Cadman wrote:
There seems to be some confusion around SMSQ/E's 'core' and its
'flavours'.
It seems to me that Wolfgang has taken on the onerous task of
maintaining the integrity of SMSQ/E so that it remains consistent and
coherent, and that all users -
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roy Wood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Dave P [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
SNIP
The issue I take with it is this notion that all versions of SMSQ/E must
be identical. I think this is not in SMSQ/E's best interest because it
discourages
Before replying to Phoebus' post, I'd just like to say that I have the
utmost respect for someone who changes their mind after expressing a view
for so long.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, [windows-1253] Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote:
If someone has copies of the list in-or-around '98 he will remember that
I
On 07/11/02 at 17:07 Dave P wrote:
The issue I take with it is this notion that all versions of SMSQ/E must
be identical. I think this is not in SMSQ/E's best interest because it
discourages development.
For example, I think it is good for a version to add a feature that may
not be supported by
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, ZN wrote:
Obviously, this excludes all platforms where such
feature simply makes on sense or is impossible (by design - leack of need),
but does at least suggest some form of forethought, so that we don't get
'my way or the highway' style features. This breeds
??? 7/11/2002 12:07:12 ??, ?/? Dave P [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??:
Before replying to Phoebus' post, I'd just like to say that I have the
utmost respect for someone who changes their mind after expressing a view
for so long.
Thanks.
Please here note that if TT had made a different point in his
??? 7/11/2002 1:02:47 ??, ?/? ZN [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??:
snip
Then what you really want to say in the licence would be that additions to
SMSQ/E to add a feature of capability to one platform will not be accepted
if it may seriously hinder or even prevent adding an equivalent feature or
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Dave P [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
SNIP
The issue I take with it is this notion that all versions of SMSQ/E must
be identical. I think this is not in SMSQ/E's best interest because it
discourages development.
We never said they have to be identical just 'coherent'.
On 7 Nov 2002, at 17:07, Dave P wrote:
(different possibilities on different machines)
I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but, obviously it is something.
I distinctly seem to remember that, as long as something is useful
only for one machine, I see no problem in putting it in the code for
John Sadler wrote:
All your problems would be solved if you use the LGPL license, if the soure
and code is going to be free.
Anybody would be able to sell comercial programs using the updated SMSQ/E
code.
Official versions would still have to be ratified by the appropiate person.
Yes, I think
10 matches
Mail list logo
