On 19 May 2002, at 16:56, Peter Graf wrote:
> *** 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. *** I must take the blame for that - it was always INTENDED that the binaries were not to be distributed other than through the resellers. > >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. I told about the meeting here in this list - everybody was 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. i didn't know that, but I could have helped you there. > >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 ??? Why should it change? We're having difficulty getting it done in the first place! What I can guarentee is that, as long as I am registrar, and thus have a say in the matter, if there were to be a change, it would be made just as public as it has been now. Is that good enough for you? (snip) > 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? Commercial and non-commercial developers have the same rights. > >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? Just what do you think we are doing here, if not deciding and disucssing? I always request the opinions of those who were at Eindhoven before drafting any change. > 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? No. The problem is that I ODN'T CARE WHO PAID WHAT in the past. If you , or anybody else, believes that past paymen,ts entitle them to something special, then, I'm sorry, but they must contact TT directly. I can only work with what has been given to use RIGHT NOW. Wolfgang ----------------- www.wlenerz.com
