On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: > Dexter wrote: > > So please, let us have a developer's license to encourage people to make > > SMSQ applicable to a wider audience and to really help it grow. It doesn't > > harm you, and it would certainly help you. > > - Tony does not read the list.
That seemed kinda obvious... > - Tony did not do the licence. He said "whatever sensible you'll come > up with at Eindhoven is fine with me". That was not obvious. Now I know that, I am very disappointed. > Apart from that I have long ago lost the overview over the whole > discussion and don't really have the time to catch up. Let me summarise: Most people are grateful to TT for allowing this option. We've had the proposed license explained to us, and it's mostly Really Good. A couple of us are a bit put out, or rather, we would be put out, by the restrictions to the development cycle that the license puts on us. The problem is that there is no way to give someone an executable of SMSQ for testing (even if they're already a licensed user) unless and until that executable and source have been submitted to the maintainer, accepted into the main code tree, distributed to a reseller, and ordered commercially from that reseller. Every time you submit something, you have to buy it back. Not to mention that's before you can even do any testing with third parties. If you're doing something novel, no matter how limited or unrelated to the at-large userbase, if the maintainer doesn't accept it, you can't use it, unless you give your clients the source, and make them compile it themselves. That may not be what is intended, but that is what the license says. Completely ridiculous. Dave
