In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Cable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >I do enjoy the diversity of opinions and the glimpses of personalities that >occur in the give and take on this issue. And I do not think bad of anyone for >their position but it is surprising how different they can be. I would think we >would want to give the source code to anyone who would want to look at it on a >silver plater and allow them to do anything they would want with it in >the hopes >that Wolfgang Lenerz could merge the good stuff into an ever improving core >operating system that is predictable and documented. Then hardware and software >developers would really have something to work with. I think that is what is being offered. > >I bet 90% of us have already given our donation to TT for SMSQ so what more is >there to give. He has been paid for his work. Do we have to keep buying it over >and over or are we renting it? Unless there is some unforeseen demand for SMSQ >that draws in new users there will be no more new buyers of SMSQ. > We don't expect there to be any significant sales of SMSQ/E and there is no question of requiring anyone to buy it a second time.
>In the past some of the most talented contributors have refused to participate >in the SMSQ side of things precisely because of its closed nature and we have a >fragmented community. Now we might lose another batch of enthusiasts >who want to >do good things for the QL. This license is strange and we do not need >that. If I >were a developer I would not participate. I would not mind giving my work away >free to help the QL community but I would resent like hell its >inclusion in SMSQ >under the proposed agreement. The core system needs to be really free and open. >The software developers who want to make money write programs we want that run >on that core system. The traders stock the software for us to buy and add value >to the core operating system that we will buy. There is no way around the fact >that this is a hobby system and making much money is not possible. Strange this. On the one hand we have someone saying they cannot use this licence because it does not allow them to charge for their work and complaining because they have to give it away for free and on the other we have someone saying the licence does not make the code open and free. As far as I can see the licence says that, if you want your code to be included into the system you have to give it away for free ( I am not sure if there is an obligation to make the included code part of the freely distributable sources). SMSQ/E is modular so adding an extra commercial package to it would be easy. It is less hard to remove part of it and that is something we have all discussed. The practicalities of someone writing, say, a new file manager with longer filename (oh no, not that again!) and then selling that as a commercial add on are something we want to discuss. We should be able to make this fit both models. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
