From what Marcel is saying about his continuing to focus on QPC code changes, and debate if he should port the changes to the Q40 (I hope that I summarized that correctly), we may need to tailor our approach to how we do this.
I would really, really, really, like to see SMSQ/E behave basically the same on all platforms (QPC, Q40, QL, uQLx, and so on). Given that Marcel seems to be the closest to the code, he can take the lead on what happens with the core of SMSQ/E. There can be different persons designated to port the main changes to the other platforms (Q40, uQLx, etc). This way Marcel could concentrate on moving forward. I would suggest that portability be of higher value than taking short cuts due to some different feature in the underlying hardware. As for paying for all of this, we could leave this option open to the different porters involved. If the person doing the Q40 changes contributed his work for free, then the Q40 changes would be free and so on. If the port comes from a lot of code that Marcel has done and Marcel has decided to charge a fee for his work, then the Q40 port would come a some fee. Personally, I'm not too worried about paying a small fee for seeing new features. Heck, I'd be willing to do a subscription service for changes (say $X per year). This approach might generate enough funds to cover the work. Marcel, there might be a portion of this whole project that must be done for free. I can see you charging for QPC changes, but any work done for the WHOLE project, might be done as a volunteer (sort of overseeing the project). Might this be workable? I understand Jochen's concern. If SMSQ/E and extra parts to QDOS (wman, ptr_gen, hotkeys) move toward Open Source, then what happens to the license to distribute these binaries? After a certain date, can I freely distribute the PE to any QLer? We need to think about this issue. We need to think about how it will affect the dealers, esp. Jochen. Will the SMSQ/E documentation be freely available, or will the fees that Tony received be removed and lower the price of the documentation? Jochen, I think it's time for you to jump in and speak your mind. I think you should feel free to let us know how it will affect you, esp. in the pocket book. I appreciate the discussion of technical details on the list of possible changes to SMSQ/E. I don't know the OS at that level so I'll stay out of the conversation until something is mentioned on how it will affect the user. But thanks for keeping it in the list so those interested can read. I think that opening up SMSQ/E is a good thing for the QL world. How we do it should be contrained by how much it will affect all those involved. I don't see a necessity that it be fully GPLed. At the very least I think that the cost of SMSQ/E, documentation, and updates should come down in cost. (I'm assuming that TT will no longer expect his normal license fees). I can see paying a few $$ for the source code and such, to cover the cost of distribution and work. I do think that the more the code can get out to other programmers the more features we will get. One more thought, since SMSQ/E can be modularized, I'd seriously recommend that features that can be added via modules and kept out of the core OS code, be done this way. This will keep the core code smaller and easier to maintain. Authors of new features can implement their code without relying on someone to check the code into the main source tree. I look forward to hearing what other think and to what the final decision is on how the community is going to go about this project. Tim Swenson
