As requested by Wolfgang Lenerz, I visit ql-users for a statement about the SMSQ/E "license".
The past: 1. SMSQ/E was simply a commercial product from commercial work. It was developed and supported by Tony Tebby for native 68k hardware platforms, e.g. GoldCard, QXL, SuperGoldCard, Q40, Q60. My part in financing was for the development of the Q40 specific things including highcolor. I haven't gained rights over SMSQ/E, nor did I expect that. It is true that Tony did not implement everything completely, e.g. he promised the code would be free from non-68060 instructions, but I do *not* criticise Tony therefore. Overall I am very happy with all the efforts Tony put into Q40 SMSQ/E!!! Fine. (Richard Zidlicky was wrong here IMO.) 2. Tony Tebby effectively stopped working and agreed in principle to make SMSQ/E Open Source. He would even do that without getting money. This is very generous. Wolfgang Lenerz started to take care of this. Thanks to both. Fine. 3. An official statement about the SMSQ/E license was published (e.g. in QL Today). The contents was agreed upon in the absence of Tony Tebby, me, and D&D Systems. It had several strange passages, but it did not forbid distribution of executables for free. This made sure that contributions from non-commercial authors can not get lost or abused. So at least the most important condition for non-commercial work seemed to be given. Resellers would get financial reward for their support. License oddities seemed to be in the process of being straightened out. Thinks still looked hopeful. Now: 4. Distribution of SMSQ/E executables for free was forbidden. This changes everything. It shows other passages of the "license" in a different light. The combination now means, that non-commercial contributors no longer get any rights from this "license", except the revocable right to see a vanishing snapshot of the code (***). A purely commercial "license", with precautions to also use (or throw away) non-commercial work for unlimited commercial purposes of others. What does this mean *practically* ? This is tailormade for a commercial developer, who has separate agreements with the appointed resellers. There seems to be one single commercial developer in the QL world who might need this "license". (Personally I don't think he really does, because he's got a well selling emulator product.) Except this one person I don't know *any* system developer in the QL world who *needs* this "license"! But several developers who reject it. The situation for Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E: Tony Tebby was our only *commercial* developer. Tony Tebby worked for a wide variety of native 68k hardware. If Tony Tebby is replaced by a person mainly working for his commercial Windows emulator, this doesn't help us much. With Tony Tebby gone, Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E depends strongly on the work of non-commercial authors!!! These non-commercial authors would like to participate in development! For example, there are developers interested to implement 128 MB RAM support, harddisk improvements (>4 GB), slaveblock solution, cache handling, better MMU usage, network support, 68k FPU support for SMSQ/E and so on. The ONLY REASON why they can NOT do do the work for SMSQ/E is this "license", which locks them out. For the development of Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E this "license" is a DISASTER. (For hardware development for SMSQ/E it is a disaster as well.) Bye, Peter (***) Reasons why non-commercial contributors don't get any rights from this "license", except the revocable right to see a vanishing snapshot of the code: If a contribution is "accepted" by the registrar, the license leaves completely open what will happen to the executable code of a contribution. All this can legally happen with your executable under the "license" (if the license itself is legal at all in your country): 1. It may be completely lost if the AR's (appointed resellers) simply don't sell it. 2. It may be lost for a specific platform only, if the AR's exclude a platform. 3. It may be sold so expensive only few will buy it anymore. 4. It may be sold expensive for a specific platform only. 5. It may be coupled with closed-source commercial code and later not be available without that code. 6. It may become expensive later on, because of commercial code added for completily different purposes. 7. It may be sold for unexpected commercial purposes outside the QL world. 8. It may be lost if one single AR gives up his work. All this also makes the "rights" concerning test versions completely void. Your executable code may be lost or abused, as soon as it is "accepted". The "license" leaves *availability* out of the control of the "registrar" and puts it exclusively into the hands of AR's driven by commercial needs. (That's normal for commercial work, but not for non-commercial work.) So a non-commercial developer, even if he is willing that his *free* work is *only* sold, must always look around for an AR he can completely trust, and make separate agreements with him. He then needs to bring "his" AR into office which can be rejected by the other AR's. Even if the non-commercial developer has luck so far, that will only help if he finds a *mighty* AR. A simple AR can give him no ideas about the prices that 3rd parties will force to charge later on, or what the other AR's will do with his code. If my fears about the results of this "license" are just paranoia, why not include rights for the non-commercial developers?
