OK, this has now officially gone well into the ridiculous (I'm using a fair
bit of energy to stop myself from using a much stronger word).
The fact of the matter is, this argument over the licence is pointless
because no one can nor should win it, because it's the wrong argument.
There is
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 12:18:57AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote:
No we won't. Look. No one has to pay for SMSQ/E twice. If you have a
copy of SMSQ/E for your platform then upgrades are free. I feel that
many of you think that the rule that binaries should not be distributed
for free applies to
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:06:31AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter
Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Roy Wood wrote:
CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ???
Note that I said I 'was' in favour.
Oh, sorry. I misunderstood.
I seriously thought you were interested in a
On Tue, 21 May 2002 08:35:29 +0100
Michael Grunditz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On 22.05.2002 14:47:27, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
Roy you are playing with fire.
Everyone who goes into discussion with P. or C. Graf, is playing with fire!
And I know what I'm talking about!
You might consider beeing more careful, if the substance of your disagreement
with Peter ever
On Wed, 22 May 2002 01:06:31 +0100
Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter
Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Roy Wood wrote:
CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ???
Note that I said I 'was' in favour.
Oh, sorry. I misunderstood.
I seriously thought you were
On Wed, 22 May 2002 19:34:55 +0200
Wolfgang Uhlig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22.05.2002 14:47:27, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
Roy you are playing with fire.
Everyone who goes into discussion with P. or C. Graf, is playing with fire!
And I know what I'm talking about!
Everyone who
On 22.05.2002 20:44:07, Claus Graf wrote
Come to your senses, Roy! This is not your list and you are not allowed
to repeatedly throw dirt on others in public. If you cannot make a
reasonable point, shut up. Telling lies and slander about a person
is not how a discussion is held. If you are not
On 22/05/02 at 14:28 Dave wrote:
The part that they should contribute are the changes necessary to have
this support as an external module, AND THAT'S IT.
So who develops the kernel?
That is a good question.
It is really a cooperative effort, and the key to keeping it that way is
finding a
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 11:18:26AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:18:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:18:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21 May 2002, at 23:38, Jeremy Taffel wrote:
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
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 07:34:55PM +0200, Wolfgang Uhlig wrote:
On 22.05.2002 14:47:27, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
Roy you are playing with fire.
Everyone who goes into discussion with P. or C. Graf, is playing with fire!
And I know what I'm talking about!
You might consider beeing
Roy you are playing with fire. You might consider beeing more careful,
if the substance of your disagreement with Peter ever goes public it
might be not very favourable for you.
No I am not playing with fire at all. I refused point blank to pay Peter
some money I owed him. I agreed that I owed
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Claus Graf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Wed, 22 May 2002 01:06:31 +0100
Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter
Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Roy Wood wrote:
CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ???
Note that I said I 'was' in favour.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Zidlicky
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 12:18:57AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote:
No we won't. Look. No one has to pay for SMSQ/E twice. If you have a
copy of SMSQ/E for your platform then upgrades are free. I feel that
many of you think that
Title: MAILING LIST CHANGE
I am now in the process of moving the mailing list to its new Home. I will be subscribing everyone currently on the list to the new list then unsubscribing everyone from the old mailing list. As part of this process you should receive a message detailing the new
26 matches
Mail list logo
