On 18 May 2002, at 11:48, Peter Graf wrote: > As requested by Wolfgang Lenerz, I visit ql-users for a statement about the > SMSQ/E "license". > (big snip)
> 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 (***). There is no difference betwwen càmmerecial and no commercial developpers in this licence. > 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. What separate agreements are we atlking about here? > 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. That's their choice, of course. > The situation for Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E: Tony Tebby was our only *commercial* > developer. for OS work, yes. > 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. This is simply not true. The ONLY reason they do not work under this licence is THAT THEY DON4T WANT TO work under this licence. Do I bid their wrists? Do I threaten them with death ? Do I stop them from working with this code? No, they have decided that this licence is not aceptable for them. Fine. But DON'T say that they CAN'T work under this luicence. 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.) > > (***) 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. No it doesn't - if it falls within the binaries, it falls within the scope of the licence. > 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. Oh sure, here I am, trying to encourage you to participate, and then, when I get something from you, I say no, this won't be sold ... > 2. It may be lost for a specific platform only, if the AR's exclude a platform. So become a reseller for that platform. > 3. It may be sold so expensive only few will buy it anymore. You really believe that? > 4. It may be sold expensive for a specific platform only. Why would it be? become a reseller and sell it cheap! > 5. It may be coupled with closed-source commercial code and later not be > available without that code. True. So? > 6. It may become expensive later on, because of commercial code added for > completily different purposes. True. SO? > 7. It may be sold for unexpected commercial purposes outside the QL world. Oh yes GREAT! A new market opens up for everyone here. Thousands of thousands of new users will infuse some new blood in our small QL World. Hmmm. Why don't I see this happening? > 8. It may be lost if one single AR gives up his work. Then I'll call for a new one. If there is none, that will means that interest in SMSQ/E had waned so much that there is sense in going on like that. > 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". Yes, I often abuse code. > 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.) Same for all! > 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. Why are you talking abouit separate agreements again? What agreemnts would that be? > He then needs to bring "his" AR into > office which can be rejected by the other AR's. I don't follow this scheme at all. The developper brings his code to me. I decide whether it is included in SMSQ/E or not. If it is, I'll try to get it into all other versions for the other machines. This is then diffused to the resellers. On the rejection of the resellers, here is the scheme I have worked out until now: II suggest that all those (boy, am I being optimistic here) who wish to become resellers contact me. I shall propose everyone to the resellers as they already exist. If the resellers accept the new one - OK. If the existing resellers refuse the new one (why? - but let's cater for that eventuality) then I'll contact TT about this, re-propose the reseller to him, and his decision will be final. > 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. Sell it, of course. > If my fears about the results of this "license" are just paranoia, why not > include rights for the non-commercial developers? Why have two sets of rights? Wolfgang ----------------- www.wlenerz.com
