On 22 May 2002, at 23:08, Richard Zidlicky wrote:

>(...)
> 
> yes. And you neglect the fact, that by the nature of accepting 
> royalty payments you have a SPECIAL AGREEMENT with that particular 
> developper so why did you deny that?

Oh, that's waht you mean by a special agreement. If the licence 
provides for the mechanism, it isn't a special agreement, is it?

> Unfortunately, in order to be effective this special agreement 
> would have to grant that developper special rights over the licence.
> For example someone requesting royalty payments could never
> agree to a licence change that would allow free distribution 
> of binaries so you would have to ask this developper each time
> you would wish to change this license. This is  a privilege 
> that "normal" developpers will never have and I find this
> *extremely* unfortunate, 
Oh, why is that - from copyright point of view, everybody has the 
same rights.

> effectively the copyright of SMSQ
> is tainted in a way that can't really do much good to anyone.

If you have several people collaborate on a project, it seems right to 
me that each one retains copyright over his part (the licence 
explicitly states so).

> > There is a questio here, that still needs to be resolved,a nd it 
> > concerns Perter's wish to "buy out" the Q40/Q60 binaries.
> > As I understand it, Peter would "buy out" the official version as it stands now.
> > What about new versions as and when they come out. Would they 
> > still fall under this "buy out"? 
> > What if the new version, to which something wonderful might have 
> > been added, wasn't a free upgrade?
> 
> don't add wonderfull fancy things to the core OS, I can't think
> of any project that would
>   - be large enough to be justifiably doable only commercial
>   - could not be done very easilly as loadable addon.
OK, so anything commercial could also be done as a loadable 
module. No problem here.

> If you can think of something (anyone, not just Wolfgang!!!) 
> then throw it in for discussion, otherwise please clarify the 
> licence in the way that absolutely no added royalty payments 
> will occur.
>

Yes, some input would be welcome.

Wolfgang

Reply via email to