Dave wrote: > I think what is needed is a "manufacturer license" that can be > extended to people who are developing hardware and who need a > close level of integration between the OS and hardware. > The license should have a simple per unit fee,and the manufacturer > should be responsible for supporting the OS on that hardware, > and for supplying updates for that hardware.
The Minerva license is just fine, as is any open source license. You can find a list at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical > I don't know who the responsible parties are, but I would be happy > to help negotiate such an agreement, if the parties were looking > for a non-interested party. Thanks, but I will certainly not invest my time in an another license discussion. All the best Peter _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
