Phil, The Amiga already has a QL Emulator, which is free, but is not SMSQ/E, but QDOS.
Derek Phil Kett wrote: > Rich Mellor wrote: > >> The email from Nasta was dated December 2006. >> >> The etherIDE would be a good project - the main problem would most >> definitely be the lack of a TCP/IP stack and drivers. >> Alas Peter Graf knows how to implement this, but cannot see eye to eye on >> the SMSQ/e licence - perhaps it is a language problem, as I do not see >> what the actual problem is with the need to include open source code in >> the operating system. >> >> > I think the problem here is that no one can build or use SMSQ without > actually buying a license to do so. Yes the source is available to > download but unless you're already running SMSQ it's not actually > possible to compile it. > > Thanks to people on this list I'm now in possession of all I need to > build SMSQ, I decided to have a go while I was at work. I then realised > that I didn't have a copy of SMSQ available to me there (I do at home) > and therefore because the source relies on the DEV device being > available (which as far as I can see is only available in SMSQ itself) I > once again hit a brick wall. > > Open source software generally is useable on open source software > without any commercial pre requisites. > >> The only charges now made for smsq/e are equivalent in many ways to the >> charges made for copies of Linux and limitations on the distribution of >> that, yet I do not see arguments over the various Linux distributions >> available. >> >> > > The difference here is that there are also binary copies of virtually > all linux distributions available for free download. > >> Maybe something on the free GPL licence that is stopping Peter from >> thinking he can distribute his work is beyond me. After all, Red Hat Linux >> is not free, does not come complete with sources and tools to let you >> compile it, yet people are happy to write free software under the GPL >> licence for it and new items, which can be incorporated into Red Hat. Yes >> I understand that the distributors charge for support - but come on, does >> the end user see any real difference between paying £x00 for Red Hat >> Linux, and paying £x0 for smsq/e? Both have readily available sources >> which can be downloaded and compiled, IF you have the right tools. >> >> > Yes, there is a charge for Redhat (but only the Enterprise version these > days) but that mostly covers a 24x7 support arrangement. The source is > available for all Redhat packages - it's in fact included in the > distribution. > > Yes, there is a huge difference between SMSQ and Linux, as I've > discovered I can't compile the sources for SMSQ without spending money > on a semi commercial assembler. If I wanted to I could download a new > kernel for my linux machine at any time, compile it with a freely > available copy of GCC - compiled by myself from source - and then > install that kernel on any machine I wanted to - completely legally and > without restriction. > I think the major difference is that software for Linux can be developed > and compiled on any distribuition of Linux, it is then compatible with > all distros assuming GCC versions are comparable. > > Incidentally, Redhat does come with GCC and all the tools necessary to > completely recompile every single piece of software that's included in > the binary distribution. > > I'm not sure that there is a direct conflict between the SMSQ license > and GPL, except for the fact that the GPL does include the provision for > binary distributions as long as source is included. > > Whether there is anything stopping someone from branching the SMSQ > source I don't know - the way I read the license is that unless you are > an official distributor you are not allowed to distribute binaries, and > the published license (in the latest source tree I downloaded a couple > of days ago) still states that a fee must be paid to Tony Tebby for > every binary given to a new customer. I know that it's been said on this > list that this is not now the case but it's still in the license. > > > I am an open source developer with software published under GPL > (http://www.remosync.org for anyone that's interested) - the GPL gives > people a huge advantage in that anyone can use a piece of code that's > published under GPL in their own projects as long as the resulting > software is also released under GPL. My own code includes some modified > checksum routines that I probably would never have been able to write on > my own - these came from the cksum command freely available as source > under GPL. > > I myself would like to see a completely open source, freely compilable > operating system for the QL - but I honestly don't see it happening. > > I'm sure after some of my recent emails that a lot of you are > thinking I'm just after everything for nothing - this isn't the case. I > have QL hardware that I've had for ages and I'd like to contribute to > the continuation of a wonderful machine. Every which way I turn though > someone wants money from me that I haven't got at the moment. > > I know I've mentioned it before but take a look at the Spectrum > community, there is new software available for the spectrum and people > are selling it - usually for about £2.99. I know that the QL is a > different beast and that programming for it is massively more > complicated but can we really justify selling software for such elevated > prices as is currently the case? > > Most of the traders have admitted that they aren't going to make any > money from the QL anymore, anyone developing software for it would be > mad to think they are going to make a profit in such a small market. I > can understand the idea of supporting traders that have supported us > users over the years but I really think it's time to face facts, the QL > is very much a minority machine and charging high prices for software > is just going to make it more inaccessible than it already is. > > I actually wonder whether my idea of attempting to port SMSQ to the > Amiga is even going to be worthwile. I can't distribute a binary, which > means that I'd only be able to distribute source - which without > creating a completely seperate branch I couldn't do because it's only > possible to actually compile it with an assembler that's only > available for the QL and then only if you buy it. Fortunately I'll > still attempt it because I want to know if it's possible - even though > it'll take a huge amount of work and I know I'm effectively doing it for > nothing. In essence that is the point of open source software - working > for the good of others without personal gain - and that's something > that the QL community as a whole needs to embrace. If we don't then the > QL will disappear completely. > > I'll get off my high horse now! Once again apologies for the long email > - I'm sure you're all getting sick of me by now but I hope that at least > some good will come from my rantings! > > Phil > _______________________________________________ > QL-Users Mailing List > http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm > > -- > This email has been verified as Virus free > Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net > > > _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
