On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:54:04 +0100, John Gilpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rich Mellor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:39 AM > Subject: Re: [ql-users] QMAC > > >> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:20:43 +0100, John Gilpin >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Following recent suggestions, I have been investigating the feasibility >>> of >>> purchasing a suitable license from the Software house that we currently >>> pay >>> royalties to for the software QMAC and QLinker. Although they have not >>> ruled >>> out the possibility of supplying us a license to cover 'indefinite >>> sales >>> for >>> a one time fee', they have warned me that due to the passage of time, >>> the >>> source code has been archived and it would be extremely expensive to >>> retrieve it. >>> >>> Can I ask those of you who were interested in this software to advise >>> me >>> if >>> the source code is necessarily required or should I continue with my >>> negotiations as outlined above without the source code being provided? >>> >>> Incidentally, their C.E.O. compliments us all on supporting the >>> Sinclair >>> QL >>> for over 20 years. >>> >>> Best regards to all, >>> >> >> Many thanks for investigating this - it would be interesting to know the >> cost of the one-off licence and the cost of retrieving the source codes. > > It's not the cost of the license that's important but whether the money > is > being well spent. Hyperthetically, if it costs us £100 to make the > software > freely available to Quanta members, this is the equivalent of 20 copies > at > the £5 royalty fee. Are 20 members really interested in this software > (only > ONE reply to my query to date) I agree - perhaps Quanta would be better to say, purchase 5 licences and then offer to give them away - that would probably be more than enough to meet demand. > Regarding the search fee for the source code, I suspect that if it takes > a > week to find, there won't be much change out of say £2,500 to £3,000. How > long is that piece of string? > >> However, with tools such as DEAssembler and the knowledge within the QL >> world, there may be no need to actually obtain the sources. After all, >> all we really want this free assembler for is to allow easy compiling of >> the smsq/e sources. >> > Well, that's the impression I got, but after a month or so, nearly > everyone > has forgotten about asking QUANTA to spend some money on their behalf so > are > they really interested? > > Where are all those software experts who wanted to upgrade SMSQ but > needed > the tools to do it with. QUANTA ARE interested in your requests (members > and > non-members alike) but please don't throw down the gauntlet then run away > and hide. - TALK TO US. Please. > > Regards, > > John Gilpin.(Treasurer) > pp QUANTA Committee. > > > >> -- >> Rich Mellor >> RWAP Services >> URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk >> URL:http://www.rwapservices.co.uk >> >> _______________________________________________ >> QL-Users Mailing List >> http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm > > _______________________________________________ > QL-Users Mailing List > http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm > > -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk URL:http://www.rwapservices.co.uk _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
