On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > On 18 May 2002, at 1:22, Jeremy Taffel wrote: > > > Wolfgang, > > > > I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with > > Richard's comments on the proposed licence. > I'm not cheesed off by the reply. I'm cheesed off when reference is > made to private correspondence.
sorry, didn't know this detail was in any sensitive. > > Furthermore having expended much time and effort -and potentially money if > > he has to buy hardware, or technical consultancy to enable him to provide > > the support, you can pull the plug at any time by tearing the licence up. > That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? so if it is not at all in your interest, why don't you give everyone reasonable guarantee that this won't happen? > > This is not the way to encourage the few souls who are both willing and > > capable of making SMSQ available and useful to a wider audience to harness > > their talents to our mutual benefit. > > Oh? What wider audience? DO you really mean that letting an > unsupported OS float around the shareware scenen would make for > a wider audience? I've been contacted from SuSE, Jakub Jelinek is himself an ex-ql user. Simon Goodwin mentioned it in some article for some Linux magazine (don't ask me which). Compare it with the publicity SMSQ had in mainstream media in the last few years. Yes, I do believe that you could easilly double the user base within a year with a reasonable license. Richard
