On 26 Mar 2002, at 14:46, Dexter 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)
I knew it was too good to last... > 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. I **personnally** don't have anything against this. I do take this as a rather moot point, though, since Roy & Jochen were the only people selling it now, really... Anybody who wants to be an official reseller can always contact me (which will be easier than contacting Tony Tebby). I'll then contact the other resellers and Tony Tebby. > 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. No, the internet will not be accepted. Actually, it's just a way of protecting the people selling it (oh boy, will I get flamed now). It is also a way of making sure that those who do not wish to publish their source code can have it distributed anyway. YTou can always get the sources from me (unless you request one every day). To be quite frank, I don't think that it'll cost me more than something like 50 blank CDs - I can't believe that SO many people will be interested in the sources. > The decision to not allow distribution of binaries is very restrictive to > the point of being obstructive. See above. Also, I admit that this is a way to FORCE developers to gothrough me to have the binaries distributed. I can foresee that some will resent this pressure, and perhaps not develop anything. Just consider, that we're not doing this just in order to be unreasonable, but to try to get this thing on a coordinated road. The resellers have a duty to support their customers. For me, the situation is pretty simple: - either you are able to compile the code for your machine from the sources - then you don't need the resellers, you can adopt any change. - or you can't recompile this - then you should get your binaries from the resellers, who can handle your queries. >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. On the other hand, those "testing" the code, are most likely to be involved in the code writing, too... > 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. This is a valid point I presume that this mainly concerns the Q60/Q40. Unless I'm mistaken, Peter Graf bought a SMSQ/E licence from Tony. There is no reason this couldn't be handled via the resellers, then... > I hope the four points above are lucid and explain the difficulties they > cause. I hope the replies do something to dispell your fears. > Looking for some more lively discussion. Sure. Wolfgang ----------------- www.wlenerz.com
