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 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
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 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
]
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Simon Goodwin mentioned it in some article for some Linux
magazine (don't ask me which).
This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and
may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you
must not read it and must
I do enjoy the diversity of opinions and the glimpses of personalities that
occur in the give and take on this issue. And I do not think bad of anyone for
their position but it is surprising how different they can be. I would think we
would want to give the source code to anyone who would want to
Thanks Bill, I am glad to see I an not alone in my views
Regards
Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.macnamaras.com
- Original Message -
From: Bill Cable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: QL Users [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I do enjoy
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter
Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
SNIP
I have asked a simple question, no answer. OK I make it even simpler:
Can I have Roy's above statement, without additions that make it void,
from you ???
What are the additions that make it void ? If you want to a reseller,
and here the problems start. The people have already paid for
SMSQ so the new reseller is practically only supposed to distribute
upgrades and provide support. This appears even less interesting
for potential resellers because they can hardly charge very much
for an upgrade.
Most upgrades to
Quanta have never contributed to the development of SMSQ/E
If you say so, OK, I seem to remember a few years ago a big
conflab about using the Quanta funds to pay for a new OS(SMSQ?)
On the other points, as I say you have always had my support, as
have the other traders past and present., and
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Bill Cable [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I do enjoy the diversity of opinions and the glimpses of personalities that
occur in the give and take on this issue. And I do not think bad of anyone for
their position but it is surprising how different they can be. I would
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote:
This is a different issue. If your non-commercial developers don't want
to work under the licence that is their problem, not yours. As a
One small point. If ANY developer, commercial, private or otherwise,
decides not to do work they might otherwise do
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote:
freely distributable sources). SMSQ/E is modular so adding an extra
commercial package to it would be easy. It is less hard to remove part
of it and that is something we have all discussed. The practicalities of
someone writing, say, a new file manager
and here the problems start. The people have already paid for
SMSQ so the new reseller is practically only supposed to distribute
upgrades and provide support. This appears even less interesting
for potential resellers because they can hardly charge very much
for an upgrade.
Most upgrades
- Original Message -
From: Wolfgang Lenerz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 18 May 2002, at 1:22, Jeremy Taffel wrote:
Wolfgang,
A lengthy response, please don't flame, I would appreciate a considered
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Richard Zidlicky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
Most upgrades to SMSQ/E have been provided free. The only exceptions
were for the systems where there were colour driver implementations and
where the actual version number changed. Jochen and I have done this
without
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dexter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote:
This is a different issue. If your non-commercial developers don't want
to work under the licence that is their problem, not yours. As a
One small point. If ANY developer, commercial, private
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter
Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Hi Wolfgang,
*** Distribution of executables for free was *not* forbidden in the first
official statement! This has changed and caused severe implications on the
availability of non-commercial work. ***
I must take the
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood replied to something I said:
I think this is the way most people would go. Obtain the sources, and use
them to gain insight into SMSQ, then reproduce each modular section and
release it under the GPL, until the entire OS has been replicated in a
GPL'd version.
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote:
Yes but it is not your concern as a reseller. I agree that we do not
want to lose any contribution but some people will not contribute
because they have already fixed an attitude which is against what we are
doing. This has always been the way of
On 18 May 2002, at 12:13, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
(...)
so don't comment private correspondence and answer the
questions.
So rephrase the questions without reference to private
correspondence.
Previously you asked me to voice my concerns publicaly
so what do you actually want?
What
On 19 May 2002, at 7:50, Dexter wrote:
As a developer, one would expect to be kept up-to-date with the latest
sources automatically. To expect developers to do so by mail, at their own
expense, when there are instant methods available that incur no expense
and enhance communication
On 18 May 2002, at 1:22, Jeremy Taffel wrote:
Wolfgang,
I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with
Richard's comments on the proposed licence.
I'm not cheesed off by the reply. I'm cheesed off when reference is
made to private correspondence.
I think that
On 19 May 2002, at 7:18, Dave Walker wrote:
Timothy,
When I got SMSQ/E from Jochen, I got:
a) A generic SMSQ/E User Guide (38 pages) that was not machine specific
b) Custom supplement pages for each hardware environment I bought
(typically 6-10 pages)
Same here when I got my Q60.
On 18 May 2002, at 12:40, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
There is nothing in the license that would guarantee me any of my
changes will get back into official SMSQ.
That is true. On the contrary, the registrar has the right to
oinclude/exclude any code.
There is nothing in the license to
On 18 May 2002, at 22:08, Timothy Swenson wrote:
>
> It would be better to leave out stating who the official distributors are
> in this Official Statement, and put it in a separate document. It would be
> kind of like putting in the name of the Officers in a set of By-Laws, as
> the names
On 19 May 2002, at 16:40, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
unfortunately your inconvenience is only the smaller problem. The
bigger one - what happens if you are fed up and go out of business?
There are perhaps 100s of users with your hardware without any reseller,
so to get SMSQ updates they
On 20 May 2002, at 1:43, ZN wrote:
OK, I've been reading the licence discussion for quite a while and I find
it does make sense for a world where the following is clearly defined that:
1) A generic SMSQ core, common to ALL platforms (*)
2) SMSQ extensions, or more precisely, additions or
On 19 May 2002, at 17:16, Peter Graf wrote:
Just imagine today's license situation had already existed when Q40
hardware was finished. Not the slightest chance to have SMSQ/E on Q40.
Untrue.
And if TT had decided to stop development altogehthern, the
chance would have been even less.
On 19 May 2002, at 13:52, James Hunkins wrote:
I am sorry to say that I am very, very disappointed.
You are not alone.
(snip)
I recently just joined this email list because I was hoping to get some
help on some implementation problems that I am having with the QDT
project.
Sorry, I
- Original Message -
From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I agree entirely with Bill, having spent many thousands of
pounds
running several businesses with QLs and SMSQ/E, including Q40.
We
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
4. Distribution of SMSQ/E executables for free was forbidden. This changes
everything. It shows other passages of the license in a different light.
The combination now means, that non-commercial contributors no longer get
any rights from this license, except the
Wolfgang wrote:
Timothy,
When I got SMSQ/E from Jochen, I got:
a) A generic SMSQ/E User Guide (38 pages) that was not machine
specific
b) Custom supplement pages for each hardware environment I bought
(typically 6-10 pages)
Same here when I got my Q60.
And more.
Peter
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
everybody was invited.
No. Fact remains: This meeting was in the absence of Tony Tebby (who had
the SMSQ/E rights), me (sick), DD Systems (not invited), or
representatives of OpenSource development (vacation).
Fine. Develop it. Get it accepted as an authorised
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
Just imagine today's license situation had already existed when Q40
hardware was finished. Not the slightest chance to have SMSQ/E on Q40.
Untrue.
Rubbish. None of the guys who wrote operating systems for Q40 would ever do
the same under this socalled license.
I do not agree, the QL has progressed to where it is by tinkerers
playing about with it, and then making their efforts available,
with or without charge, to the community. No other software
carries these restrictions, and now that suspicion has entered
the debate, it is not going to leave in a
In message 005a01c1ff8d$3d771310$b25d86d9@macnamark39uau, Mike
MacNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Where is Quantas input in this matter, I thought they contributed
to the development of SMSQ. Why are they not distributing an
official version, and as members will no doubt want to help
develop
I guess the point I was trying to make was that the 38 page guide was
no where near comprehensive enough to document a full OS. I'm sure
that it assumed that the user was already familiar with QDOS. The Gold
Card/TKII manual was a little more in depth, as it only covered some
extensions to
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 12:39:22PM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
On 19 May 2002, at 16:40, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
unfortunately your inconvenience is only the smaller problem. The
bigger one - what happens if you are fed up and go out of business?
There are perhaps 100s of users with
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
On 18 May 2002, at 1:22, Jeremy Taffel wrote:
Wolfgang,
I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with
Richard's comments on the proposed licence.
I'm not cheesed off by the reply. I'm
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
than the license is very badly engineered. It enforces discipline
by rather brute methods that will only hurt people who would like
to help and leaves too many important points wide open.
I have proposed alternatives to
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
On 18 May 2002, at 12:13, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
(...)
so don't comment private correspondence and answer the
questions.
So rephrase the questions without reference to private
correspondence.
someone else happened
- Original Message -
From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message 005a01c1ff8d$3d771310$b25d86d9@macnamark39uau,
Mike
MacNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Where is Quantas input
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Mike MacNamara wrote:
One point you make is that the QL is now just a hobby machine,
why then all this fuss over a license for something people just
want to play with.?
Mike,
Some people are quite upset about this license, and some disagree with it
mildly, like me.
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 his resellers (which are also your appointed
Dave wrote:
Some people are quite upset about this license, and some disagree with it
mildly, like me.
True, but you have it easier disagreeing just midly than we. For us it is
not only a question of wasted work or time, but we have extremely expensive
stuff on the shelf. Just for example the
-
From: Timothy Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I've glanced over the comments made by others on the SMSQ/E official
statement and have decided to take a nice long look at the statement
myself
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Dave Walker wrote:
Coming back to the original source code license, there has been a lot of
discussion about only sending the source via physical media. I agree very
strongly with others comments that this seems a needless restriction. It
seems to add cost and
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 11:48:30AM +0200, Peter Graf wrote:
As requested by Wolfgang Lenerz, I visit ql-users for a statement about the
SMSQ/E license.
The past:
1. SMSQ/E was simply a commercial product from commercial work. It was
developed and supported by Tony Tebby for native 68k
- Original Message -
From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SNIP
that is the optimist view. However there is nothing in the license
that would guarantee me that the source code would be continuously
available in the future.
There is nothing in the license that would
- Original Message -
From: Bill Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code
- Original Message -
From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SNIP
that is the optimist view. However
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 07:50:06AM +0100, Dexter wrote:
If I end up handling hardware sales, would I have to become an SMSQ
reseller? I'm not qualified. But if the resellers declined to offer the
ZYXABC version of SMSQ (as they have done with the Qx0) I would have no
choice but to find
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 01:05:42AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote:
Interestingly, not all legitimate commercial interests
are served equally humbly here. When Peter Graf tried
to acquire the right to give away (for free) SMSQ-Q40
binaries in exchange for a substantial payment to TT
he was
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:52:06AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote:
This is surely not a problem because the technically advanced can have
the source code and do the fixes, pass these back to Richard and he can
get them into an 'official' UQLX SMSQ/E.
that is the optimist view. However there is
Dave wrote:
Peter Graf and I do not exactly see eye to eye. We have agreed to disagree
when it comes to developing hardware for the Qx0.
Yes, and it is perfectly OK by me, if you prefer to develop for Goldfire or
the black QL! They may need your help even more than Qx0.
Just imagine today's
Mike wrote:
I agree entirely with Bill, having spent many thousands of pounds
running several businesses with QLs and SMSQ/E, including Q40. We
stopped because of the lack of development keeping pace with the
market. I was delighted when SMSQ/E was made open source, and
looked forward to a
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Bill Waugh wrote:
Well I have to tell you guys if as much effort had gone into code as has
gone into nitpicking and general etimewasting then we would have the Space
Shuttle running on SMSQE by now ( just don't enter any very long planet
names though ).
I wouldn't
I am sorry to say that I am very, very disappointed.
I have been a loyal QL user from nearly day 1, have never made any money
off of it, but keep going at it. I am now working extremely hard on QDT
as some of you may know. To be honest, it is a labor of love. I will
be happy if I ever make
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], James
Hunkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I am sorry to say that I am very, very disappointed.
I have been a loyal QL user from nearly day 1, have never made any money
off of it, but keep going at it. I am now working extremely hard on QDT
as some of you may know.
I agree entirely with Bill, having spent many thousands of pounds
running several businesses with QLs and SMSQ/E, including Q40. We
stopped because of the lack of development keeping pace with the
market. I was delighted when SMSQ/E was made open source, and
looked forward to a revival in QL
As far as I can tell this was exactly what Peter wanted - what
was the problem?
He wanted a one off payment and exemption as far as I was told.
--
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
Peter Graf and I do not exactly see eye to eye. We have agreed to disagree
when it comes to developing hardware for the Qx0. However, I must stand up
100% in support for him. The resellers do not wish to sell a Qx0 version
of SMSQ. The only way for them to supply Qx0 in this situation is to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter
Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Roy Wood wrote:
Distribution of executables for free was always forbidden.
Not true. I refer to the official statement made in public, not to the
secrets of your meeting. The fact that it was not forbidden in the
beginning,
]
www.macnamaras.com
- Original Message -
From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code
All of this continual bickering and hair splitting is
getting needlessly
introspective
You have easy to speak when you can change
At 07:18 AM 5/19/2002 +0100, you wrote:
Timothy,
When I got SMSQ/E from Jochen, I got:
a) A generic SMSQ/E User Guide (38 pages) that was not machine specific
b) Custom supplement pages for each hardware environment I bought
(typically 6-10 pages)
I agree that the SMSQ/E Reference
I guess you have to be European to become flame bait on this mailing
list. Here I thought my last message about support and SMSQ/E would send
electronic fire and brimstone heading my way. Instead, It seemed like it
made not a single blip on the radar.
So, I'll ask again, when we talk about
OK, I've been reading the licence discussion for quite a while and I find
it does make sense for a world where the following is clearly defined that:
1) A generic SMSQ core, common to ALL platforms (*)
2) SMSQ extensions, or more precisely, additions or changes to the core,
start as a
I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with
Richard's comments on the proposed licence.
I missed out on some of this because I have been trying a new spam
rejection program which was harder to configure than I thought so I
apologise if some of my comments are
As requested by Wolfgang Lenerz, I visit ql-users for a statement about the
SMSQ/E license.
The past:
1. SMSQ/E was simply a commercial product from commercial work. It was
developed and supported by Tony Tebby for native 68k hardware platforms,
e.g. GoldCard, QXL, SuperGoldCard, Q40, Q60.
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 09:18:24AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16 May 2002, at 13:28, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
can you say me how exactly the license requires
the resellers to provide support? In our private
discussion you went to great lengths to ensure me
how they are required
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 10:39:29AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote:
I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with
Richard's comments on the proposed licence.
I missed out on some of this because I have been trying a new spam
rejection program which was harder to
This is surely not a problem because the technically advanced can have
the source code and do the fixes, pass these back to Richard and he can
get them into an 'official' UQLX SMSQ/E.
that is the optimist view. However there is nothing in the license
that would guarantee me that the source
Interestingly, not all legitimate commercial interests
are served equally humbly here. When Peter Graf tried
to acquire the right to give away (for free) SMSQ-Q40
binaries in exchange for a substantial payment to TT
he was turned down (not because he offered too little
money btw).
I've glanced over the comments made by others on the SMSQ/E official
statement and have decided to take a nice long look at the statement
myself. The comments below are strictly my opinion, not based on any input
from the other commentors.
At 02:50 PM 5/13/2002 +0200, you wrote:
Official
that
is what was being refrred to.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Timothy Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 4:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
At 01:43 AM 5/19/2002 +0100, Roy Wood wrote:
What rights are they ? As I have
On 16 May 2002, at 13:28, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
can you say me how exactly the license requires
the resellers to provide support? In our private
discussion you went to great lengths to ensure me
how they are required to provide support but I can't
find absolutely nothing specific about
Wolfgang,
I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with
Richard's comments on the proposed licence.
I think that he has some valid points which you don't seem to have
understood. Think of it this way: Richard has done a good job with UQLX and
has it working on may
...
3/ No distribution of SMSQ/E may be SOLD, except
for the official distribution. This interdiction
includes that of including and distributing
SMSQ/E in Public domain libraries.
Official distributions will be sold in compiled
(binary) form, possibly together with the
official
Hi all,
This is to keep you informed of the state and
status of the SMSQ/E source code.
The future licence-to-be has been a bit
modified, notably to take into account the fact
that test versions must be easily distributed.
Here is the (still provisional) text. As usual,
I invite all of
On Mon, 13 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The future licence-to-be has been a bit
modified, notably to take into account the fact
that test versions must be easily distributed.
Here is the (still provisional) text. As usual,
I invite all of you to comment.
Ok :o)
2/ SMSQ/E will be
Sorry, it might be long.
I will try to [snip] what I do not want to discuss.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] makes some magical things to make me read
} Hi all,
}
} This is to keep you informed of the state and
} status of the SMSQ/E source code.
}
} The future licence-to-be has been a bit
} modified,
On 13 May 2002, at 16:04, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
Good! but I think you need an appendix which states:
- Who is the registar
- What is the address of the registar
- Who are the distributors/resellors (address and more also)
yes of course, you're right, at least as far as the registrar
On 13 May 2002, at 13:44, Dave wrote:
Never say things likje 'the registrar, i.e. me.' because this means me
is the registrar. This is very open to abuse. You would here put a
personal or organisation name and contact details. Obviously this is a
draft, but this does need correcting.
Sure
On 8 Apr 2002, at 15:52, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
don't say it will be open source then - it won't.
True.
Forget those
who have seen this as a great chance for SMSQ.
I still see it as such. You can still get the code, you can still make
changes, you can still dustribute your changes
On 26 Mar 2002, at 21:34, Timothy Swenson wrote:
(...)
5/ Any person may make any change to the source code he feels like.
Any person may give away to others the modificaton he thus made, including
the official distribution in source code form only, provided this is made
ENTIRELY FOR FREE -
On 26 Mar 2002, at 21:58, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
No, compiled versions can only be obtained via the official
resellers. HW vendors have to get a licence now, too..
if there is a way for them to get the license.
Yes, sure there is - why shouldn't they become resellers?
(testing
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:34:31AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(soundforge)
you don't have to, but there is nothing in the copyright statement
that would forbid anyone from keeping an inofficial mirror on Sourceforge
or wherever. Your paragraph 5 appears to allow that explicitly.
At 07:09 ìì 27/3/2002, you wrote:
Great stuff! Thanks to all who brought it about, not least of all TT
himself! At last the mysteries unveiled and we'll be in control of our own
destiny. This could be a new beginning - or the way to dusty death. Only
time will tell.
Yes, the main benefit of
In message 00e101c1d5ed$82778180$0100a8c0@gamma, P Witte
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
BIG SNIP
I think you just said it all !
--
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 :
Wolfgang,
even though there have been
astonishingly few reactions so far.
Probably shock ! TT allows SMSQ to go 'open' - it shocked me !
Of course, I take that as full approval of what been done
You have my approval. Hopefully, when you get sorted out, I'll be sending
off my IRC
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:39:27 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Following the discussions at EIndhoven,here is what has been agreed upon,
Tony TEBBY also having agreed to it:
In short:
In short this is GREAT NEWS ! :-))
Finally, I would like to add a personal note:
A
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 at 08:01:22, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
(ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read
} I have understood the bit about no charge in giving copies. As someone
} running a PD library I'll mention here I'm happy to adhere strictly by
} this.
} I
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
