OK, here one of the more important answers from me, the rest has to wait until I have more time (this is also true for everybody waiting for a private answer).
First of all some facts: SMSQ/E for QPC is not per default included in the offer from Tony. Tony doesn't even have the source code for that. And I will continue to maintain SMSQ/E for QPC anyway, i.e. eye every piece of new code and decide whether it will go into the source tree or not. This means that I will continue to maintain one "official" SMSQ/E version (core + extensions + QPC related drivers (which partly overlap with Q40 and QXL)) in any case. I am of course not much interested in maintaining the specific bits of other platforms, as I don't even have the chance of testing those changes. In my eyes this should be done by people actually using those platforms. This said, let's go on: Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > If itis Open Source, there will be no more commercial status. I don't know whether this would be any good. We need some money flow to keep people like Jochen involved (who also does the SMSQ/E support BTW, but certainly not for free). He sounded BTW a bit disappointed by the fact that the whole decision was done over his head. I would prefer Joachim's proposal. And at least I won't do any Aurora drivers (for example) without having the chance of getting some revenue back for that (which is usually done through fees). If on the other hand somebody else volunteers to do them: super, go ahead. At least the decision of the license is a very important one. Use the GPL on it and I'll probably quit being a developer. I want to have the final decision what to release and what not. > The in principle refers to the fact that Tony said he would do it if > we find a suitable person. He did suggest you.... He is concerned > about his code being savaged if let around freely. As said, I will keep maintaining SMSQ/E for QPC and I have no problems with sharing my decisions regarding changes to the core, extensions etc. with other platforms. > I agree. Tony told me that he had started to integrate most of the > different versions (one for each machine on which SMSQ/E runs), > so that there is only one source code, with, I presume, different > modules. Yes, he tried to separate the machine specific bits of the generic bits. So for example QXL/Q40/QPC use the same serial driver core, just the hardware dependant bit is different. > IUf you allow me to, I'll tell him that you volunteered (or you can > tell him yourself), to get the source code transfer organised. Reading all the other mails this maintainer stuff is still not fully clear but you can certainly tell him what I wrote above. > I personally also find it very important that, if we do some > development on this, we do it for ALL machines that run SMSQ/E. I > was a bit worried about your earlier proposalsn because you might > have the (totally natural!) tendency to give a priority to QPC( I'm > ONLY speculating here, NOT accusing you of anything!) which i > something I personally would prefer to avoir (even if QPC is what I > use most).... Let's say it this way: I specifically wrote the code in a way that it can be used without changes for both Q40 and QPC. I haven't however decided when to release the Q40 code (though it was certain that I eventually would). As everybody knows there was some BS between QPC and the Q40 people and looking at pqiv for example they don't seem to be very much interested in compatibility which makes it a bit hard for me to release my work for their platform for free (hopefully this is at least a bit understandable). On the other hand I KNOW that it's pointless to have the new WMAN on QPC only (this certainly wouldn't be any good for the QL world which I'm also trying to help in general. It needs every help it can get...), therefore I would have done a Q40 version eventually. > As to you being the registrar, I'm at once for and against it - > here's why: I think that you are one of the few people capable of > really understanding what Tony has done. As such, you are, of course > ideally suited as registrar. On the other hand, since you are one of > those rare persons, you are one of those few who can actually be > doing some real coding work and quite selfishly, I'd rather see you > do that... Well, as said, I will basically continue to do what I did anyway, i.e. having an eye over SMSQ/E for QPC. If that's of any help for other platforms: fine, I'm willing to share. That's what I have to offer but I can't do very much beyond that. Marcel
