In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>This approach is not illegal by any means and is exactly the same as
>>that adopted by most major software houses for other platforms - M$
>>included. No-one can legally sell a copy of Windoze for instance
>>unless they are a licensed M$ distributor and these distributors pass
>>the goods on to the shops and other outlets.
>
>That's not true even if M$ wants you to think so... Dave is absolutely
>right when he says that this approach is ILLEGAL totally... however for
>the reasons I explained to my previous email it is not illegal in our
>case. To further explain: If you prohibit ANYONE to sell an original
>version of SMSQ/E then no one would be able to sell their second-hand
>software for example. I would have to come to you or Jochen give you my
>SMSQ/E that I didn't want any more for this or the other reason and
>then wait until you sold it!. As you can see this is not only illegal
>but impractical as well :-)
But that is actually the case if you click the 'accept' box in Windoze.
You are not legally entitled to sell your copy of Windoze 98 on to
another user even if you have stopped using it yourself. It is all there
in the small print that no-one reads but every one, including the
pirates, agrees to. The whole point about this is that Jochen and I were
not overly concerned about the money because it is a small amount. We
were concerned about having to support code we know nothing about. If
someone modifies a copy of SMSQ/E and distributes it who is to say they
will change the version number. When that code breaks down somewhere
unforeseen by the author of the changes we may have to deal with a
customer whose programs are not working as they should and we have no
way to tell if the code is the one we put out or a modified copy. It
could all get very messy. This whole argument has been splitting hairs
and blurring what is, in fact, a very simple attempt to give you more
say in what direction SMSQ/E takes whilst maintaining a stable platform.
We were not aware we would have a veto in any other person becoming a
reseller and we would probably not take up that option anyway. All we
want to do is to ensure that the end user has the most stable version of
SMSQ/E with as many features and extras as we can crowbar in.
>
>>Our community is very small so adding a distributor level to the
>>process would be unnecessary. You can become a reseller if you wish.
>>Just contact Wolfgang and he will speak with TT on your behalf. Maybe
>>is a good idea because the US users would have a better contact.
>
>I am here and available for that :-)
Fine.
>
>>Be prepared, however, to adopt the role of 'bedtime story reader'
>>because a small minority of users seem not to want to read the manual
>>and are happier if you read it to them over the telephone. One called
>>me the other day to ask how to create a second QXL.WIN file on QPC2.
>>When I told him it was on page x of the manual he quite happily said
>>that he had put the manual away, was not at home and wanted to do it
>>right then. Oh well in that case. Are your sitting comfortably,? Then
>>I'll begin........ Once upon a time ......
>
>Hey I have no problem with providing support on this but I don't see
>how many "sales" SMSQ/E would have in the US (apart from the few
>upgrades). That would be just a convenience service to the community
>rather than a "business" :-)
My point entirely. That is what Q Branch is. I lose money on Q Branch
but I do it because I enjoy using the system, I like the people and it
gives Jochen and I an excuse to meet up for a meal in a foreign country.
I have done this for eight years now and Jochen has done it for far
longer. If either of us did this for money we would be long gone.
--
Roy Wood
Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK
Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!)
Mobile +44(0)7836 745501
Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
