Dexter makes some magical things to make me read
} Hi all,
}
} I'm not saying anything here as personal opinion - I am playing devil's
} advocate for the sake of creating a little controversy, which will
} hopefully result in some discussion. At the moment there is too much
} agreement. :o)
Ok, let's see... It's just my point-of-view/feeling.
} The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents
} growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers.
} If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably
} illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each
} country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller.
That's easily answered by specifying either that:
- Reseller must be directly nominated by Tony Tebby.
- a would-be-Reseller must get clearance from the college of actual Resellers.
the procedure for the college of Reseller is up to them.
In case of conflict, the coordinator or Tony Tebby get the final word.
}
} The decision to not allow any charging for sources is being rationalised
} by you folks as a good thing (taxes, etc). It forces the sources to be
} distributed by some free means only, ie the internet, and prevents it
} being distributed by PB/shareware libraries unless they make special
} arrangements. These arrangements more than double the length of time it
} would take a recipient to get a copy of the sources.
Outdated argument, might has been valid ten years ago.
Moreover, personnaly speaking, as I'm still the QLCF librarian,
French people could get free access to the sources from me the same
way as they get access to the QLCF library (even more easily,
because accessing the QLCF library required to be on the right list!).
I would not have to make any change to my management for these sources.
}
} The decision to not allow distribution of binaries is very restrictive to
} the point of being obstructive. I would propose the refinement to the
} license, stating object code/binaries cannot be distributed to the general
} public, and may only be shared at no cost for the purposes of beta
} testing, or for producing custom versions for specific hardware. It would
} otherwise restrict development and, combined with the clause mentioned
} above, testing, of the code.
The only way to force fancy developpers to share their code is to forbid
the distribution of binary. This way, code related to new hardware is
forced to go back to the coordinator for inclusion in the main code.
It is also the only means to have the reseller doing their work.
Otherwise, Just Imagine: I make a custom version for some hardware,
based on version 3.01. I distributed it worldwide. Then official version
move on up to 3.30 (with lot of nice enhancements), and either:
- I get hassle by my customers to update and either:
+ I do it (and everybody is happy)
+ I try to do it but fail du to a major incompatibility in my old design,
and customers get stucks.
+ I say 'f**k up', and customers get stucks.
- I cleverly disappeared or loose my code: customers get stucks!
Whereas, if the reseller are responsible of the binary distribution,
I could have simply given to the coordinator the patched source code,
and new improvements get available to my customer. The burden of the price
is dealed by the reseller.
What I'm not yet confortable with is the 'pay-me-option' for my source if
it is not free and how to keep the main distribution of source. There
must be some priviledged people (with the relevant hardware for test) which
must be able to generate the binary and test it. But that's the problem
of the coordinator.
Your argument for beta-testing is void, because, for a beta, I want
to have the source available. Thus you distribute the source, I compile,
and get back to you with comment on behavior and code.
Testing a black box is not a good testing for code!
Dissiminating time-unlimited beta is not a good thing either!
}
} If only the official tree can be sold, how does a hardware manufacturer
} who produces a custom version of SMSQ/E for XXX hardware include it in
} ROM? He can offer to make payment of a license fee, but under this
} license, it doesn't matter, it can't be distributed in binary form, or for
} a fee. This removes any incentive for a developer to actually adapt SMSQ
} to specific hardware, forcing us to stay with the hardware we already
} have.
He should provide its sources to the coordinator,
Get the status of Reseller (see first point) or buy them the needed binary
for the customer or just refers its customer to the Resellers.
Just my opinion.
