Roy Wood wrote: >Distribution of executables for free was always forbidden.
Not true. I refer to the official statement made in public, not to the secrets of your meeting. The fact that it was not forbidden in the beginning, was a reason why some developers considered to work under this "license" at all! Some developers may still have missed this change. *** Distribution of executables for free was *not* forbidden in the first official statement! This has changed and caused severe implications on the availability of non-commercial work. *** >You knew about the meeting and were going to come but decided not to. You mislead the public here. I became sick with influenza, staying in bed all week, another person was known to be on vacation, TT was not attending, and D&D Systems was not invited. Also I was not informed the Eindhoven meeting was to *decide* anything. I would never expect such a meeting without TT. Just by the way, my hearing is not well enough to completely follow a such a complicated negotiation in *spoken* English. >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. Unfortunately the license doesn't say that. Can I have this statement, without additions that make it void, from the "registrar", and guarantees it won't change in the future ??? A large problem would still remain: My *person* is no guaranty to non-commercial developers. I can get sick, or whatever. Their rights should be in the *license*. If they are not, I can hardly expect them to work for Qx0 SMSQ/E. >These two comments smack of paranoia. [...] >All of this is yet more paranoia. All the statements I made are clearly given by the "license". If you want something else than the "license" says, change the liscense. I will be very happy to admit that you are right, then. There are extremly strict conditions to ensure everything *you* want. Why not rights for non-commercial development as well? >That is something we have been discussing. [...] We all decided [...] This and other remarks suggest repeatedly that you participate in *decisions* about the "license". So it is not just the "registar" and TT. Is this correct? Have you paid *more* for SMSQ/E development than I have, so *you* have the right to participate in decisions about SMSQ/E, and I have not? Peter
