On 19 May 2002, at 13:52, James Hunkins wrote: > I am sorry to say that I am very, very disappointed.
You are not alone. (snip) > I recently just joined this email list because I was hoping to get some > help on some implementation problems that I am having with the QDT > project. Sorry, I must have missed your request. What was it? > Instead I have been getting this stream of emails that, to be > very blunt, sounds like a lot on non-productive whining. The alternative would have been to say: Here , this is the licence, you have no chance to discuss it, that's it. I perfer to leave it open for discussion. > I will continue to work on QDT. I made a decision a long time ago that > it will require SMSQ/E to run as there are some major pieces that I need > from SMSQ/E to to it properly without having to write a tremendous > amount of additional code. I would hope that everyone can come to an > agreement about this license that will support SMSQ/E for all systems > currently available which will allow QDT to also run on them. What do you need? > I hope that this didn't come over too bluntly, but I have to deal with > disagreements much larger than this everyday in my 'real' job and we get > them resolved, without resorting to the kind of stuff that I have been > reading for the last couple of days. The difference here is that there is no real "need" for people to get to accept compromises. Everybod can just walk away from the project if they want to. > I really enjoy working on my system and my development of QDT. So, > please guys, just find a way to resolve this and get on with it. > Never fear - whatever happens, you can at leastbe pretty sure o something: SMSQ/E will be available, in one form or another, in the future... Wolfgang ----------------- www.wlenerz.com
