Peter wrote: > [snip] The license didn't turn out as you wished, but I'm still of the opinion that you could have worked with/under it regardless. It's also not "Wolfang's license", the wishes of many, including Tony Tebby's, were incorporated. If you asked me, SMSQ/E should have been available free of charge, but apart from that many provisions like a centralized source code manager were a good thing (which was incidentally one of the things TT heartily approved of IIRC).
Once again, times have changed in any case. I'm willing to support changes to the license to suite you and your development or even putting a completely different license in place. And I'm probably willing to integrate any QDOS software you might release into an official SMSQ/E release. Really, if I can spare the time, I'm willing to help, regardless if it's native hardware or not. Even back then I was asked and agreed to port SMSQ/E to Nasta's new hardware base, which unfortunately never materialized (so much for the "fact" that I have anything against hardware). But to keep saying "I could have released that 10 years ago if the license had turned out differently" is not helping anybody. Give it a rest, please. >> You see the "platform" from the eyes of a hardware designer, which >> is fine. I see it from the eyes of a (QL) software developer, > Which is also fine :-) Just a pity that your big ones like PS2 printer > emulation and TCP/IP are not QL software. I'd have been your customer :-) Okay, but neither was really out of choice. QPCPrint is only that easy and universal to use because it employs the Windows printing system (besides that it's mostly sold to non-QL-users anyway. And there I could sell it for easily double the price, but I wanted to keep it low so QL owners can still afford it). By the way, using a Windows machine as a sort of "printer server", native hardware could also benefit from QPCPrint. Certainly not as elegant or desirable as a native solution, but at least a solution at all. A native TCP/IP implementation for QPC would not only be harder to implement, but have a much worse user experience, too (needing special kernel drivers to even be able to send/receive the raw packages, for example). Native hardware would have it actually easier in this case. On all the other improvements I made to SMSQ/E over the years I (along with Wolfgang) usually made sure that all platforms, including Qx0, could profit from them. All the best, Marcel _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
