Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
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 upgrades. As far as Jochen and I see it does not. Upgrades are always available and always free if the version number does not change (i.e. the bit before the '.'. I cannot see this happening) lack of foresight? We are at version 2.98 now, the sources Wolfgang received are already different from 2.98 so they would have to be called 2.99 if they were released as a version. So the next bugfix after that will cause version 3.00 to be released? Many programs expect the version to be a plain long word so you can't easilly call it 2.99a or something like that. Richard
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
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 solution. I'm sure all Q40 and Q60 users will appreciate your helpful attitude. OH I am interested in a solution and I may also have misunderstood the nature of your intentions but, owing to your previous actions, many people now do not trust you. I had thought that, because of our ongoing disagreement, it was just me but it seems evident that it is not. You continually present two faces to the world. One that appears on this list as helpful and smiley and one that appears in private emails (and I have seen the ones you have sent to others) which are at best belligerent and at worst blackmail. This has made many of the people whose opinions are courted on these matters hostile to you. Maybe this is a misunderstanding of your nature. I don't know. As I said. I was not opposed to your suggestion until the downside was pointed out to me. 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. Certainly we should try at any cost to keep this matter out of *this* discussion. Richard
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
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 interested in a solution. I'm sure all Q40 and Q60 users will appreciate your helpful attitude. OH I am interested in a solution and I may also have misunderstood the nature of your intentions but, owing to your previous actions, many people now do not trust you. I had thought that, because of our ongoing disagreement, it was just me but it seems evident that it is not. You continually present two faces to the world. One that appears on this list as helpful and smiley and one that appears in private emails (and I have seen the ones you have sent to others) which are at best belligerent and at worst blackmail. This has made many of the people whose opinions are courted on these matters hostile to you. Maybe this is a misunderstanding of your nature. I don't know. As I said. I was not opposed to your suggestion until the downside was pointed out to me. -- Roy Wood 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 able to suppress your hate, leave the list. Claus
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
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 able to suppress your hate, leave the list. and not more than 14 minutes later, the same person wrote: (OK, he who has no arguments starts to attack persons, a well known phenomena) :-))) Wolfgang Uhlig
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
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 it to him and I refused to pay him. On the face of it this looks pretty bad doesn't it ? But then you only know what Peter chooses to tell you. After many attempts to get Peter to face up to some kind of support for his product when Tony Firshman had over half the boards not working and customers who had paid for them and did not have them I decided to refuse payment until he sorted it out. We went to Eindhoven to meet him to talk about it and show him some non working boards. He spent the entire show nuzzling up to TT and did not address the problem. We made him take the boards with him so we could find out about the problem. He took them and 18 months later he had made a few comments about a few parts which were not very good but these were not necessarily the root of the problem. We have found since that a lot of the problems were down to faulty video ram which he supplied. I wanted to use new parts. They would have cost more but the chance of problems would have been reduced. He said that, if I raised the price of the product to cover the cost of new, instead of second hand parts, he would raise his license fee. Tony and I agreed to take only 30 pounds per board as a profit. Peter took 250 DM (at the time 100 pounds). What price free software now ? I do have an ongoing dispute with Peter because, when I closed my shop, I was practically bankrupt. I have struggled to keep Q Branch going and to support the users. I told Peter that I would pay him the money I owed him because I was quitting the Q 40 and accepting the loss I had made on it but he had to wait until I had fulfilled my obligation to the general users and I gave him a date on which I would do that. I was a little late in the payment but I paid him most of what he was owed. There was a small matter of 1200 Dm outstanding at the time which he admitted to me in a letter. Part of the payment was to be the delivery of three working Q40s. At the time he still had the three boards and processors. When he took delivery of the three boards one did not work he just sent it back and accused me of trying to cheat him. I had never seen these three boards they came directly from Tony Firshman himself and were working when they were sent out. He returned the board and sent an email offering me to pay him 1200 to close the affair. This was timed neatly to expire before I came back from the US show. By the time I had read the email he had sued me for much more than he said I owed him. He won the case because I, incompetently, misread the date on the letter giving the court hearing date and trusting made an offer to mediate without a hearing which was ignored. I have seen many emails Peter has sent to other people in which has threatened many things. At the recent Manchester show none of the traders would talk to him and the feeling was so bad that he pulled out of the planned meal. I have no objection to this being out in the open. I have kept it quiet because I felt it would not be good for the QL scene for these matters to be aired in public but don't try to threaten me because it just won't work. I stand by the statement I made before. The general run of traders do not trust Peter because we have had a first hand experience of his behaviour. Even recently he has stated, when Tony Firshman offered to supply some parts to DD, that he did not want any of Roy's defective parts. Funny that. Tony Bought all of the parts for the Q40 except those supplied by Peter himself and some of the SIMMs which I bought. Peter parts were the most defective including EPROMS that would not program, one defective processor, two low speed processor (which we never asked for but were charged for) and very shoddily recycled video ram which has caused many of the problems we have had. Next time you open your mouth try to find out a few facts. If you don't want to believe me ask Jochen Merz, ask Tony Firshman. Certainly we should try at any cost to keep this matter out of *this* discussion. No we should not. -- 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] SMSQ/E proposals
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. Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. I seriously thought you were interested in a solution. I'm sure all Q40 and Q60 users will appreciate your helpful attitude. OH I am interested in a solution and I may also have misunderstood the nature of your intentions but, owing to your previous actions, many people now do not trust you. I had thought that, because of our ongoing disagreement, it was just me but it seems evident that it is not. You continually present two faces to the world. One that appears on this list as helpful and smiley and one that appears in private emails (and I have seen the ones you have sent to others) which are at best belligerent and at worst blackmail. This has made many of the people whose opinions are courted on these matters hostile to you. Maybe this is a misunderstanding of your nature. I don't know. As I said. I was not opposed to your suggestion until the downside was pointed out to me. -- Roy Wood 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 able to suppress your hate, leave the list. I se no hate in this. I have just said what has always been said by many others behind your back. Your brother has offended a good many people in the past few years and in the end every boomerang comes back. -- 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] SMSQ/E proposals
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 the rule that binaries should not be distributed for free applies to upgrades. As far as Jochen and I see it does not. Upgrades are always available and always free if the version number does not change (i.e. the bit before the '.'. I cannot see this happening) lack of foresight? We are at version 2.98 now, the sources Wolfgang received are already different from 2.98 so they would have to be called 2.99 if they were released as a version. So the next bugfix after that will cause version 3.00 to be released? Many programs expect the version to be a plain long word so you can't easilly call it 2.99a or something like that. I would suggest the first version released under this licence be called v3.0 and be assigned as a free upgrade from all previous versions. TT had not intended to got v3.00 until some things had been added to the system but it would give us more room to manoeuvre. -- 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] SMSQ/E proposals
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 solution. I'm sure all Q40 and Q60 users will appreciate your helpful attitude. Peter
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
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 solution. I'm sure all Q40 and Q60 users will appreciate your helpful attitude. OH I am interested in a solution and I may also have misunderstood the nature of your intentions but, owing to your previous actions, many people now do not trust you. I had thought that, because of our ongoing disagreement, it was just me but it seems evident that it is not. You continually present two faces to the world. One that appears on this list as helpful and smiley and one that appears in private emails (and I have seen the ones you have sent to others) which are at best belligerent and at worst blackmail. This has made many of the people whose opinions are courted on these matters hostile to you. Maybe this is a misunderstanding of your nature. I don't know. As I said. I was not opposed to your suggestion until the downside was pointed out to me. -- 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] SMSQ/E proposals
Roy wrote: I have two proposals for a compromise, that take the commercial needs of Jochen Merz and Roy Wood into account: Proposal 1: Keep the appointed resellers. Make sure that nobody can get their support, without purchasing the binary from them! E.g. this could be done by registering the users who purchased it. This way, everybody who wants their support and handbooks, is forced to pay. The income for the resellers for their support is then secured. But also allow the free distribution of executables again (first license), so non-commercial developmers are sure their work won't be lost or abused. The appointed resellers will also benefit if there is more non-commercial work. They are allowed to sell it! [...] I was actually voting in your favour on this provided you kept the code official and it was not a 'patched' or otherwise unofficial version. Wolfgang, please also have a look! ROY AND I SEEM TO ALMOST AGREE! (a rarity :-) CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ??? I have no objections that freely distributed executables are restricted to the official versions! I agree to destroy patched versions then. It was only meant to help. But no need for that, if official work is acceptable, also for us Qx0 folks. Peter
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Dilwyn Jones wrote: Peter, one other possibility with this is NOT to sell the binaries as such. Rather, if you want support, you buy a support contract and are given a unique identifier you quote when you want help from Roy or Jochen or DD or Claus/Peter, plus the OFFICIAL SMSQE the only one for which you'll get support. That way, the binaries could be distributed for free, but the traders would still make money from the support side of things. And part fo the money could still go to Tony and perhaps the Registrar would also get a little money for his work in maintaining the 'official' distribution. Just a thought... Nice idea, fine by me! The license must say that, though. If it's not in the license, the developers won't work under it. Thanks a lot! Peter
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes We will make no money from this. Of course you will, if you offer nice support and handbooks. Folks have no other way to get your support and handbooks except purchasing the binary from you!!! Don't underestimate that. There are thousands of companies working this way in the real world. This way they benefit from the fact that plenty of non-commercial work is done, which they can sell. 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 upgrades. As far as Jochen and I see it does not. Upgrades are always available and always free if the version number does not change (i.e. the bit before the '.'. I cannot see this happening) Most people who want SMSQ/E already have it. I have sold maybe two or three copies of SMSQ/E for the Gold Card, one copy for the QXL and none for the Atari in the last year. Some I can retire now can I ? Wake up! (Actually my proposals have already been turned down, by unknown persons who influence the decisions of the registrar. But maybe some public help will allow him to reconsider.) Keep taking the anti paranoia pill one day they will take effect. Even the registrar was against your proposal. I was actually voting in your favour on this provided you kept the code official and it was not a 'patched' or otherwise unofficial version. OK. I have no objections the freely distributed code is restricted to the official versions. I can also destroy anything 'patched', if my proposal is accepted. Do you think we can agree on my proposal, then? As I said I was in agreement with your proposals. Others were not and did not trust you. I have not decision in this. I was asked my opinion and I gave it. -- 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] SMSQ/E proposals
Roy Wood wrote: As I said I was in agreement with your proposals. Others were not and did not trust you. I have not decision in this. I was asked my opinion and I gave it. Thanks. It's kept in secret who exactly turned me down, but it's good to know that at least on of the persons ruling in the background is open for a compromise. Peter
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Oh dear here we go again. I have two proposals for a compromise, that take the commercial needs of Jochen Merz and Roy Wood into account: Proposal 1: Keep the appointed resellers. Make sure that nobody can get their support, without purchasing the binary from them! E.g. this could be done by registering the users who purchased it. This way, everybody who wants their support and handbooks, is forced to pay. The income for the resellers for their support is then secured. But also allow the free distribution of executables again (first license), so non-commercial developmers are sure their work won't be lost or abused. The appointed resellers will also benefit if there is more non-commercial work. They are allowed to sell it! We will make no money from this. By the time we have paid for disks, printing and all of the other extras such as advertising etc. we will be out of pocket. Nice try but it does not hold water. Most people own SMSQ/E in one form or another so we are not snowed under with users clamouring for their copy even at, what is now, half price. (Actually my proposals have already been turned down, by unknown persons who influence the decisions of the registrar. But maybe some public help will allow him to reconsider.) Keep taking the anti paranoia pill one day they will take effect. Even the registrar was against your proposal. I was actually voting in your favour on this provided you kept the code official and it was not a 'patched' or otherwise unofficial version. -- 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] SMSQ/E proposals
Roy wrote: Oh dear here we go again. I have two proposals for a compromise, that take the commercial needs of Jochen Merz and Roy Wood into account: Proposal 1: Keep the appointed resellers. Make sure that nobody can get their support, without purchasing the binary from them! E.g. this could be done by registering the users who purchased it. This way, everybody who wants their support and handbooks, is forced to pay. The income for the resellers for their support is then secured. But also allow the free distribution of executables again (first license), so non-commercial developmers are sure their work won't be lost or abused. The appointed resellers will also benefit if there is more non-commercial work. They are allowed to sell it! We will make no money from this. Of course you will, if you offer nice support and handbooks. Folks have no other way to get your support and handbooks except purchasing the binary from you!!! Don't underestimate that. There are thousands of companies working this way in the real world. This way they benefit from the fact that plenty of non-commercial work is done, which they can sell. (Actually my proposals have already been turned down, by unknown persons who influence the decisions of the registrar. But maybe some public help will allow him to reconsider.) Keep taking the anti paranoia pill one day they will take effect. Even the registrar was against your proposal. I was actually voting in your favour on this provided you kept the code official and it was not a 'patched' or otherwise unofficial version. OK. I have no objections the freely distributed code is restricted to the official versions. I can also destroy anything 'patched', if my proposal is accepted. Do you think we can agree on my proposal, then? Peter
