In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter
Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>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 do like to split the words don't you ? It may have been missed out
of the official statement but it was discussed and agreed at the very
first meeting.
>
>>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.
Everyone was invited via the message on the Internet. We were expecting
you and I was not told to you had a cold and could not come. I was told
that you had decided not to come and that was what I said. The meeting
was not decide anything but to get the framework set out and that is
what we did. If you want to have a voice you have to make the effort.
Why should TT be there? He had clearly given his rights to Wolfgang and
he said that on this user group.
>
>Just by the way, my hearing is not well enough to completely follow a
>such a complicated negotiation in *spoken* English.
If we had shouted in your ear you would not have 'listened'.
>
>>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 ???
>
What ?
>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?
No I reply when I am asked.
>
>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?
You have as much right to participate in the discussions as I have and I
suspect that over the eight years I have been selling SMSQ/E and QPC 2 I
have contributed more to TT than you have. You are, in fact
participating in discussion right now.
--
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
