>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. Distribution of executables for free was always forbidden. It may have been missing from the original statement but it was always one of the things laid down at the meeting. You knew about the meeting and were going to come but decided not to. >This is tailormade for a commercial developer, who has separate >agreements with the appointed resellers. No. It was done to protect the end user from code which was insupportable. Don't see a conspiracy where there is none.
>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"! The developers do not 'need' it. It was done to protect the end user as I said and several of the clause were agreed/suggested by Tony Firshman who has no hand in any selling of SMSQ/E. >But several developers who reject it. For reasons which are probably more personal than altruistic. > >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!!! Fine. Develop it. Get it accepted as an authorised version. Sell it for 10 Euros or give it away for free. Just pay TT 10 Euros for each one sold. No problem. > >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.) Rubbish. See the above. >1. It may be completely lost if the AR's (appointed resellers) simply >don't sell it. You sell it with each Q 40 / Q 60 sold. It is part of the price. Upgrades can be free if the are accepted versions. >2. It may be lost for a specific platform only, if the AR's exclude a platform. See above >3. It may be sold so expensive only few will buy it anymore. >4. It may be sold expensive for a specific platform only. These two comments smack of paranoia. Any development which is of use and will benefit the community as a whole and make programs run better will be accepted and will be greeted with open arms. To suggest that we will conspire against you is ludicrous. >5. It may be coupled with closed-source commercial code and later not >be available without that code. That is something we have been discussing. We all feel that developments that are strictly commercial and for which the author requires a payment should be sold separately and either LRESPR'd or added in as a module. >6. It may become expensive later on, because of commercial code added >for completily different purposes. See above. >7. It may be sold for unexpected commercial purposes outside the QL world. Huh? >8. It may be lost if one single AR gives up his work. Which is why we have a non commercial registrar. > >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.) Should that AR's stop selling it then the registrar would have to consider the position. > >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. All of this is yet more paranoia. We all decided that there would be no premium versions and that, as I said earlier, paid add ons would be strictly that. > >If my fears about the results of this "license" are just paranoia, why >not include rights for the non-commercial developers? > What rights are they ? As I have said we have no objections to you becoming an official reseller if you follow the rules. In fact we would be glad if you did because we have no wish to be involved with support for the Q40/Q60. As an official reseller you can sell SMSQ/E for whatever you want provided you pay the fee to TT, provide a printed manual, disk and support for the platforms that you sell.It really is that simple. -- 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
