On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 06:22:53PM +0100, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > On 26 Mar 2002, at 12:25, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > > as far as I could understand the statements I am not sure whether it is > > allowed to give away SMSQ in binary form (whether or not acompanied by > > sources), can you please clarify this? This might be of great interest > > for HW vendors who want release testing versions for new HW quickly. > > No, compiled versions can only be obtained via the official > resellers. HW vendors have to get a licence now, too..
if there is a way for them to get the license. > The quick testing of new code is a very valid concern. However, > even on the Q60/Q40, you can LRESPR SMSQ/E, so testing can > be done extensively before blowing EPROMS. blowing an EPROM is a matter of minutes, this is not the concern. However some software may need testing with the broadest available range of devices.. often by people who can't be bothered to compile SMSQ themselves. So lets imagine we stick with the official route, each little untested fix has to go to you, you may or may not choose to incorporate it and release a new "official" version where we would really need a test build, then either Jochen or Roy have the joy to send this update to whoever has the actual device to test it. The effectivity of this approach is really overwhelming. As we have seen with Thierry's CD driver this cycle may need a certain number of iterations before most hardware is functional with the new driver. The CD driver itself is not a good example because it can be conveniently lrespr'd but we may hit devices which must be initialised much earlier in the boot proces so this won't work always. Quite frankly I don't understand this silly restriction, it will only add headaches to you and the official distributors. People surely won't buy SMSQ merely to save the work of compiling it themselves, they will probably buy it to get manuals and added services (SMSQ hotlines ?;). Obstruction doesn't work well as access control and 99% of the cases will cause more trouble to the good guys then to simple thieves. Don't loose the real problems out of view, you will see it soon enough. > > Btw anyone who would maintain a mirror of the code on some public CVS > > server? > > NO! > > > I could do it on Sourceforge but somewhat doubt that they will accept > > this copyright. > > Neither would I accept Soundforge. you don't have to, but there is nothing in the copyright statement that would forbid anyone from keeping an inofficial mirror on Sourceforge or wherever. Your paragraph 5 appears to allow that explicitly. Bye Richard
