Dexter wrote: >> - 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.
Why? > 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. Fine. > 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. I did not write the licence but I'm one of the people who drafted the spirit of how it should be. And in my opinion giving away a modified version to somebody who already owns SMSQ/E is ok. At least for the versions Tony has the sole copyright for (all except QPC so far). In the future there might be other versions that incorporates copyrighted parts of other people (like an Aurora driver). Of course a modified version of that can't be given away to somebody who did not previously acquire the other copyrighted part. Or shorter: if the person who receives the modified binary legally owns the version the modification is based on it is ok. > That may not be what is intended, but that is what the license says. If that's the case it should be changed. Marcel
