On 22 May 2002, at 2:53, ZN wrote: (...) > There is NOTHING in the licence to stop anyone from contributing extensions > to the OS speciffically to ENABLE using free or commercial stuff as add-ons > to it. As long as that extension does not 'close' a part of the OS, and > presents an added value to the core (and here is where the Registrar has > the last word, which may well be the most difficult part of that job!), it > will be included.
Yes. > This is equally true for support of speciffic platforms. The support for a > platform per se is not nor should ever be part of an OS core - the ability > to add this support externally SHOULD. > Arguments about a platform not being able to be supported because > programmers writing the support will not want to contribute the support to > SMSQ under the current licence are invalid because they should not > contribute that support in the first place. The part that they should > contribute are the changes necessary to have this support as an external > module, AND THAT'S IT. I agree, sort of. I still would like the developpers to contibute under this licence - but I can live with the fact that external modules are used. > All that has to be done is show the registrar that this contribution is > added value to the core in general. There is however nothing to prevent > anyone from contributing the source to a speciffic add-on (for instance, a > driver) to be distributed alongside the official distribution (i.e. sharing > the same media) but that does not have to fall under this licence! Yes, as I have already pointed out! (snip) > If a contribution becomes a part of the official distribution, under the > current licence the contribution has to be free. Not necessarily,see my other email. > May I remind everyone that > by gaining access to the source, you will essentially be able to use code > that someone somewhere has paid for to be written, essentially for free. It > logically follows that any contribution added to the official distribution > must also be free. That is the way I personally see it. (...) > The registrar should not guarantee inclusion of anything, nor it's > persistence in the core, for a very good reason: As mentioned, I do have the last word in allowing code in or not. As also mentioned, if there is no reason not to include it, why should I exclude it? > no-ones contribution is > 'the last word' in programming, never to be improved or expanded on - or > even completely replaced. ... even SMSQ/E itself - which is why we are discussiong all of this! (...) > * Problem: there has to be a means to decide which direction of development > is preferred and who decides this, this is where the registrar's criteria > for inclusion/exclusion comes from. This does not mean that the rules > should be included in the licnece, instead, there MUST at least be a > reference to some document containing the rules in the licence. That should > be the basis of any guarantee to fairness when a contribution is considered > for inclusion into the core. this is not going to be easy. Mainly because I can neither predict, nor force, a direction of development. All I can do is - ask a specific developper if he wouldn't like to work on some specific aspect - warn him that somebody else is already doing something similar. All of this development is based on collaboration. If somebody doesn't want to collaborate I can't, and really don't want to, force them in any way. I wouldn't even use the "threat" of not including their code in the source - the ultimate test has to be the usefulness. Let's just say that the remaining QL developpers, at least those I know, are often a strongheaded bunch (no criticism implied, just a statement of fact) - "steering" them, so to speak, will NOT be easy. > Availability of the binaries in any circumstance cannot be guaranteed, and > it is absurd to even ask this. A meteor could hit the exact spot where they > were kept and they would be lost (If you get my hint). Much of the argument > on this is again based on the notion of binaries for a specific platform. And I have gone on record as saying that I attempt to have coherent versions of everything (for all machines). I CANNOT guarantee that all binaries will really be sold - that is NOT part of my function. But if somebody is afraid that binaries for his/her preferred machine will not be available, they could ask to become a reseller. Of course, then you have to supply support to the end user buying the binaries. So we come to the question of support again - this seems to be a bit of a problem in many people's mind, as it seems to me that some people refuse to become resellers because they are afraid of the burden of support they will have to supply. I have thought about this question a bit more now. Initially, I had in mind a very high standard of the support that would have to be granted, such as that currently supplied by Jochen Merz, who was my "role model" in this respect, because I know how much he cares about hsi customers. If that is really a problem, I'm quite willing to leave the licence as it is now in this respect. This only provides for "support" that must be supplied by the reseller. Since this is not further defined, the support will then come down to the legal requirements of "merchandisable quality" or some other concept close to it, as it exists in each counrtry (and which, in many cases, will boil to a refund if the system doesn't work at all). Thus each reseller can measure the risks he has. I'm not sure that this is the best solution for the end user. On the other hand, I know that people like Jochen Merz and Roy Wood will continue to extend their support as they have done now. I also believe this to be true of Peter Graf. Since they are the main people involved, perhaps this is enough? Sorry about his digression for the point you were making, but I'm trying to have the licence advance. (...) > * Problem: a LOT of work needs to be done to SMSQ before it reaches that > stage. This work is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in the long run. Yes, that is a problem. As I state elsewhere, for simplicity's sake, for me the "core" is the OS as it stands now. > Under the licence, the source can be distributed as long as it's not > charged for in any way. The distribution of binaries that is not free is > rather simple to get around as a problem by distributing a make file, an > assembler/compiler, and a means to run it. Yes - that way you don't have to supply support. > If you want to charge for it, > you charge for the parts that are extending the OS (via make file at > compile time or otherwise), the compiler and the OS it will run on. If you > want to make it free, provide a free compiler and OS - both are available. > Hey, it works for Linux... and there someone had to compile the first > version on something that wasn't free!!! > * Problem: distributing the source without physical media. This has to be > carefully considered as for some platforms distributing as source may be > the only viable way of distributing SMSQ. > Distributing sources and binaries for developement purposes absolutely MUST > be alowed by electronic means. Developement easily generates dozens of > different binaries a day (or more!) and not using the fastest means to > distribute them is equal to stopping all developement, period. Alright, this point is still open and under discussion - I'd like everyone's opinion on this. > Under the licence, nothing prevents anyone from rewriting the whole thing > based on the source, and then doing anything you please with it. As long as > you don't submit it to the registrar and it's not added to the official > release, it is not covered by the licence. If you have "rewritten" it, no of course not, then it is your work. > Support in exchange for paid binaries - there is nothing to say that every > distributor should distribute or support all versions of precompiled > binaries. The only thing that it says is that if you deliver a binary, you > must pay 10 Euros to TT. You can sell it at cost and provide no support for > it whatsoever. See above, about the qurstion of support. > I think it should be in everyone's best interest to simply > ignore the arguments about distributors providing bug fixes. The > distributors only DISTRIBUTE bug fixes and act as an intermediary between > their customers and the 'manufacturer' of whatever it is they are selling > (sometimes this may be one and the same person, though!). This licence > should in no way dictate what kind of support the distributor should give - > if existing distributors act as a council when a new distributor is to be > accepted, they can regulate the rules with some other document. What this > licence should regulate is traceability of extensions to the OS to their > original contributing authors. The problem with support, as I see it, is one of responsibility. In the situation as it existed beforehand, you would buy software from a distributor. If you have a problem with the software and if it doesn't do what it is supposed to be doing, you have a right for it to be fixed (ok, there are many provisos here about this irhgt, let's not get into them). You, as user, contact your supplier, i.e. the distributor. That is your right. Now, the distributor could then turn back towoards the developper, in our case Tony Tebby, and request changes of him - and Tony (if they wre bugfixes, not new features) would do them. Now, however, the situation has changed. Suppose somebody (I, for example) makes a change to the sources, which finds its way into the official sources, and the retail versions of the binaries. There is a serious bug (there will be, if I write it...). The user turns to the reseller, but the distributor/reseller can't turn back to Tony! And since the additions are made free of charge by a volunteer, he probably can't require the volunteer to do this, either. If you impose a strict support duty on the reseller, the reseller himself would have to do the change, or hire somebody to do it, or give the mnney back (if it was a free upgrade, no problem, just go back to the previous version). Perhaps the solution lies in the systems as I set it out above. > The registrar will, if something really happens with all this and things do > take off, find himself overwhelmed with the task of actually having to know > and understand intimately every nook and cranny of the SMSQ sources, in > order to make decisions about it. yes. > This may mean that the 10 Euro may > ultimately be going to the wrong person. No. I dare say that it will be a VERY long time before additions make up more than even half of TT's code. I will GLADLY be proved wrong. Again, I don't want any money. If this were a financial undertaking of any kind for me, I would already have backed out by now, because the return on investment just is so feeble that it is not economically viable. I only do this because I like the system. It is a hobby. > Also, from this licence, it > follows that TT, should he wish to contribute to the core, would have to do > so under the same rules as everyone else! yes. Wolfgang
