As one of the Pacific Time Zone QLer's, I get to be late to the conversations, but at least I can have a try at the final word.
>3/ No distribution of SMSQ/E may be SOLD, except for for the official >distribution. >This interdiction includes that of including and distibuting SMSQ/E in Public >domain libraries. >Official distributions will be sold in compiled form, possibly together with >the official distribution as source code. >For such sales, for the time being, two distributors, namely Jochen MERZ (JMS) >and Roy WOOD (QBRANCH) have been appointed by the copyright holder. A strict interpretation of the above would allow anybody to give the source and/or binary version of SMSQ/E as long as no money changed hands. The part of not including it in an PD libraries would not prevent any person-to-person transfers. I think the above statement is very badly worded. I sort of understand the idea behind the statement, but there are logic holes that I could fit a Mac truck through (or Lorry for you non-American speakers). >5/ Any person may make any change to the source code he feels like. >Any person may give away to others the modificaton he thus made, including >the official distribution in source code form only, provided this is made >ENTIRELY FOR FREE - >no charges, not even copying charges, or charges for the media on which >this is distributed, >may be levied. But, a charge can be made if the original source code is not included, meaning just any new code that the author created. Also, if I can compile just my code as a stand alone object, is this statement saying that I can't distribute my own stuff, even without the SMSQ/E source code. Again this is badly worded and leaves more logic holes, esp. when trying to tell an author what they can or can not do with their own code. >G - >Is anyone interested in doing a nice documentation package? So many people >out there >have protested about no documentation being available. NOW is your chance >to make a >contribution. Well, I hate to talk about something in the works, esp. when I don't know when I might finish it, but I'm currently working on a "Idiot's Guide" (in the same vein as the one Norman did) for PE programming and on THINGS (so that I better understand it all). I would like to do one for the OS in general and have a draft that is only about 20% complete. I prefer to have documentation that does not assume the reader knows assembly. I also like the more complex OS documentation to use terms used by other OS books (processes, threads, atomic, semaphores, mutex's, etc). I try and understand both QDOS and Unix by comparing the two, picking up little pieces of each as I go. Anyhow, I've read the formal statement, and I've read a lot of the feedback today on the statement and I don't see a lot of the issues that others saw. Somebody make a comment about not being able to distribute binary copies of SMSQ/E, esp. if they compiled them. I don't see that in the above statement. Only a restriction on SELLING copies (both source and binary). The statement seriously needs to be revised before those Mac trucks come rolling through. I spent the last Fall re-writing By-Laws for a local non-profit, that was reviewed by the press and the City Attorney. I'm good at catching loop holes and making sure they don't exist (kind of like preventing bugs in code). As is, the above mentioned statement is fairly weak and contains statements that will not stand up in court. I'd highly recommend that it be reviewed by the registrar, TT, and any others. I really does not accomplish what it sets out to do. So until the statement changes, I don't think any one has anything to worry about. Tim Swenson
