At 09:46 �� 26/3/2002, you wrote: >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... Deep breath... > >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.
It is not flawed for a simple reason. For all terms and specifications, TT gave ALL rights to distribution to Jochen Merz (Which is LEGAL) so in this aspect the source of SMSQ/E (not source as program source but as point of origin) is NOT Tony Tebby but Jochen Merz. What is ILLEGAL is for him to "hog" the market which he doesn't do anyway.... In a recent discussion I had with him he had no objection of giving me SMSQ/E to sell in the US. The fact that the deal didn't go through has nothing to do with him, but with me having not enough time to pursue it. I am sure that if Tony Firshman wanted to sell SMSQ/E as well Jochen wouldn't have an objection either. The problem with the SMSQ/E market is that there aren't enough traders around the world, and even not enough users. No trader in his right mind would ask ANYBODY to sell ANYTHING if the potential buyers were 0 :-). So you see, there's nothing ILLEGAL per se with SMSQ/E being sold currently by Q-Branch and JMS only... it's just a matter of situation and not restrictions :-) >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. > >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. > >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. I understand your points but the situation with SMSQ/E is in a bit of dire straits right now... Let me explain why I think the solution given is the right one. (and also why I think that you are right about "refining the license") 1. Traders MUST be able to keep their (already small) sales with no repercussions. In that aspect imposing "selling" restrictions makes sure that they will get exactly as much as they were getting before (See also above my comments for selling SMSQ/E) 2. Potential PD libraries are prohibited from SELLING unofficial binaries under the pretense of Copying fees, mailing etc... It's really easy to add an all-purpose "handling fee" which would essentially be a fee that wouldn't be returned to the copyright owner. This is essential for a community as small as ours. PD libraries could still provide hosting space for those who would want to download the sources which would be free anyway. 3. Indeed IRC's are not available even at the place I am but we could provide some method of doing it by appointing some "distributor" of the sources in the US. (I do volunteer btw). This way, someone could just send me the stamps and that would be essentially the same as the IRCs :-) (By no means though this means that this is a perfect solution... but hey we live in an imperfect world). 4. Developers really MUST be able to distribute "enhanced versions" of SMSQ/E with potential hardware. This is not a constraint right now, cause really there's no REAL hardware in development but could change in the future. I think that the best solution for that would be to have a "beta test" status on the binaries. This way the developer could freely distribute the hardware/software combination and when the change would be approved, that would change the software to legal-approved status and the developer could either charge extra or (by prior agreement with the official distributor pre-charge for it and when it's approved just pay the fees it should). This way development is encouraged. H I DO believe though that potential developers should be able to distribute their builds of SMSQ/E for free if they choose so. (Emphasis on free) because if they do charge something for it, the rights should be given to the copyright holder/manager. >I hope the four points above are lucid and explain the difficulties they >cause. > >Looking for some more lively discussion. > ></devil's advocate> /public defender Phoebus ;-)
