On 22 May 2002, at 23:57, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:18:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On 21 May 2002, at 23:38, Jeremy Taffel wrote: > > > > > Because instead of answering in a civil an unemotional way you get provoked > > > into escalating the flame wars, and often don't address the legitimate (in > > > their minds) concerns of some of those that ry to debate this. > > > > What kind of reaction do you expect when I'l being called a > > racketeer? (not by you!) > > do you really think I called you a racketeer? Yes you have. Hence my reaction. Ok, let's put that behind us now, and try to be constructive. (...) > there are a few, to the point that the OS is almost unusable > in some situations. Hmm, I disagree. I have used this system for years now every day, without any problem - or if there were any, they have been corrected. again, there are features I would like to see - but their non existence is not a bug, and they don't make the system unusable. > > However, the problem remains: How do you implement any kind of > > bugfix scheme in something like SMSQ/E if it becomes entirely > > free? Then there is no legal relationship whatsoever. > > Linux also works without any legal relationship. Considering how > many features it has over SMSQ it works quite well. Ah, but when you buy it from somebody, are you entitled to bugfixes? Please see my email in reply to ZN's on the question of support. > wrong answer to the problem. If users require support sell them > support contracts. Should be actually much more lucrative for the > now resellers. Right answer to the problem, actually. Support contracts? No, this just will not happen. If users can get the binaries for free, they will - and then still bug the resellers if anything goes wrong. > there is a *big* problem if I am supposed to pay 10 Euro p&p for > each user I wish to supply with sources. > Have I misunderstood that part of the license? Certainly. The reseller pays 10 EUR for each of the binaries sold. Source code is distributed free. to quote: " 5/ Any person may make any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions to the source code he feels like. Any person may give away to others the modification he thus made, including the official distribution in source code form only, provided this is made ENTIRELY FOR FREE - no charges, not even copying charges, or charges for the media on which this is distributed, may be levied. " > > Nothing. But, again, I don't see why one should suddenly change a > > licence that we have had so much trouble in setting up in the first > > place. That would only lead to outcries and rejections > > sure it would. Merely the possibility that it could happen > is enough to turn me away. There's nothing I can say to that. The possibility makes you go away? Sorry. To my mind, the fact that I did (after all) start this entire discussion by publishing the official statement setting out the scheme we had devised, and inviting comments, is proof positive that I don't intend to change things easily, or at least not without another round of open discussion. To your mind, this isn't enough. Ok, but sorry. > ok, than add this as a preamble or something into the license. > Otherwise there is nothing in the license that would suggest > this, quite on the contrary the license leaves a few dangerous > holes in that direction. The licence contains the conditions of use of the source code that is supplied to you. That hasn't anything to do with the role of the registrar as such, exept for the inclusion of new code in "official versions". > > it is because one of the "camps" apparently dictated the licence > entirely to their liking and you aren't very open about it. Nobody "dictated" the licence to me, thank you. I drafted the licence according to what we had agreed in Eindhoven. TT explicitly agreed with it. I do ask the opinions of - those who were in Eindhoven - TT before making any change. > Ban the possibility of added roaylty payments or special agreements, No, why should I? Then I would get outcries from people telling me that they will not do anything under this licence because everything they will do will HAVE TO BE for free. Unfortunatley, the differences between these two positions (all for free, or wishing payment for work done) are irreconcilable. > add the comitment not to lock out platforms, That hasn't got anything to do with the licence. > remove the useless > restrictions about source and binary distribution and things will > look completely different. Of course they will... But it will no longer be in the spirit of what has been agreed upon until now by many. (...) > I would try to sort out some of the filesystem and harddisk > related bugs, implement support for 64,80,128MB and look how > to cleanup chache handling on the Q40/Q60. I'll take you up on this (if you agree to work under current conditions, of course). > > > However, I am an eternal optimist, and I do hope that a compromise can be > > > found which will enable us to keep (get back) all our hardware and software > > > developers - We just cannnot afford to lose them. > > This is a question far from rhetorical: Have we lost them (in the > > sense that they would have been there otherwise?). > > there is probably a reason that many developpers turned away from > QDOS/SMSQ. But that can't be the proposed licence. So the question is: have we lost them (in the sense that they would have been there had the licence been different). > You have been extremely hesitant to clarify very important parts > (or omissions) of the license - like the question of future royalty > payments. This is excellent food for paranoia, apparently you don't > even realise how horrified the average open source "user" is by > the prospects given by your licence. > I don't think I have been hesitant -as soon as that problem came out, I talked about it. I can understand that "open source" people don't like this licence, but I don't see why the licence should be dictated by their tastes only. Wolfgang
