>
> It would be better to leave out stating who the official distributors are
> in this Official Statement, and put it in a separate document. It would be
> kind of like putting in the name of the Officers in a set of By-Laws, as
> the names will change over time, and the By-Laws probably will not.
yes of course, you are entirely right -dave already pointed this out before. I just wanted to make clear who the reseller are up to now - else I would again be accused of hiding things, you know...
>
> >4/ The registrar, i.e. me, will maintain
> >official distributions of SMSQ/E, in binary and
> >source code form, one for each machine on which
> >SMSQ/E may run.
>
> I would recommend defining the terms "Registrar" (but not as "me") and
> "Distributor/Reseller". Just to fully clarify who they are and what they do.
yes!
> I understand the total avoidance of any one making money off of the source
> code for SMSQ/E, but I feel not allowing charges for media a bit strict. A
> simple workaround would be to send the person a blank CD or other disk and
> some IRC's. I am assuming that IRC's are not considered a form of
> currency. If your local Post Office does not know that an IRC is, then
> talk directly to the Post Master for that Office. There is no reason for a
> Postal Employee to not know their job. I spent 8.5 years as a federal
> employee, so I know the power of the "chain of command".
Ok, how does a max of 3 IRC + blank media strike you?
> I really don't understand not allowing distribution via anything other than
> sneaker-net. What would be the consequences of the Registrar, putting the
> Official Distribution Source Code of SMSQ/E on a web server?
Simple: I would have to do it. This takes much time, money and effort for what will finally be only a few people who will want the sources.
> It could be
> arranged that the requester must give their name and address before getting
> the Source Code. As someone that is about 5,000 miles from the Registrar,
> mail can take an awfully long time. Plus, someone like Thierry, sitting on
> a French Naval ship in the Persian Gulf, mail is very slow to come. As a
> veteran I try to keep fellow service members in mind.
Yes, thzt is indeed a concern.
> With all due respect, I don't think the above is physically possible. If I
> make a change to the SMSQ/E scheduler, I don't think that I can compile it
> and distribute it without including SMSQ/E (since this is what I have
> changed). If I can make a change and distribute it without any original
> SMSQ/E code, then I'm not actually modifying SMSQ/E and don't fall under
> this "license". I think this statement needs to be looked at again.
in other words, if you make a change in SMSQE, you can't distribute the binaries therefor. That's what it says, and that is what is intended. If you lake a change other than in the source code (e.g. a patch) then of course the luicence doesn't apply to you, I mean why should it?.
>
(snip - support)
> If we are strict in allowing only certified resellers to distributing
> SMSQ/E, I want to know what bang do I get for the buck. I have found that
> the QL community is great in helping each other out and have received more
> "support" from other QLers that from a reseller.
>
> I firmly believe that QL resellers have a right to exist and I'm happy to
> see them there (I'm glad I'm out of arms reach in case any one of them
> takes this the wrong way). But, if we are to only allow resellers to
> distribute SMSQ/E in binary form, BECAUSE they provide support, I think we
> really need to define what this support is. If we can define the support,
> great. If we can't define the support, then we are in trouble.
yes, you are right - so let's think about this. Comments, anyone?
> Wolfgang, I know that you've taken a lot of flack for this license.
I don't mind the flak, provided I'm allowed to shoot back from time to time when the argument get beyond the polite.
> I hope
> that no one has made the feedback too personal. I have looked over the
> license as much as one programmer would look over another programmer's
> code, looking for bugs and other problems. I appreciate your taking the
> time and effort to contribute to the QL community.
Hey, your comments are very welcome! (I mean that!) The only requirement I have is that the discussion remains polite.
Why do you think I make the licence projetcs available here, if not for you to comment?
> Most of us have put a lot of time and effort in to the QL and it's
> community and we all can take some of this a bit personally. In fact, you
> may be feeling a bit like George Lucas when hearing feedback about Jar Jar
> Binks :-).
Oh you mean, the licence isn't one of my better efforts... :-)
Agreed!
> And one final question, if the source code is to be released for free, what
> about the Reference Guide. Is it still only available commercially? Can
> electronic copies be distributed with the source code? I don't think
> anyone has mentioned this yet.
The refernce guide isn't part of the licence.
Wolfgang
----------------- www.wlenerz.com
