>
> sure. On the other hand, should the license explicitly prohibit
> someone from compiling and making the binaries available when
> noone else wants to support this platform or the master repository
> gets struck by a meteor? This is absolutely ridiculous and I am
> becoming tired of reading about buses and meteors as an excuse
> for poor license.
Hmm, when you get the source code from me, then unless an author asked for his code not to be distributed openly, you will get the entire source code.
Thus, if I'm struck down my a bus, or my house struck by a meteor or whatever, YOU still have a copy of the entire source don't you?
> Show me an open source project that would be so openly arrogant
> to the users as to create artificial hurdles if they wish to help
> themselves.
The licence isn't arrogant, openly or otherwise.
A user can help himself, since he can compile the code for himself
A user can help others by distributing the source with his own code.
True, a user can't help those who would need the compiled form and are not able to compile it. But they should get the binaries from a reseller. And if there is none, become one.
> Linux-Q40 is probably one of the less widespread
> branches of Linux and yet I have working up to date software like
> mozilla-1.0rc1, a few other browsers all, sorts of CD burning
> and riping software, email clients and at least 2 pretty useable
> wordprocessing systems. Fortunately there is nobody who could
> prohibit me from making the binaries available so I feel very
> strongly compelled to continue development in this direction.
On the other hand I too have a Q60 and wouldn't touch Linux on it.
So, each to his own.
> Consider the Q40 hardware - all drivers except parts of keyboard
> handler and soundsystem are fully generic. You supply different
> constants for the IDE definitions, 16550A base address etc and
> it will work on every other machine that uses this HW components.
> Alltogether the Q40 specific sources are perhaps 300 lines of code
> plus various definitions.
> Unfortunately the bugs are elsewhere and we would need to fix
> them pretty soon.
Sure, so go ahead, fix them when you get the source code.
> > 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.
>
> sure, but:
> - distributing source by snail is costly. I would be a complete
> idiot would I volunteer to port SMSQ to UQLX and then have
> 10 Euro expenses on each copy I would send out to anyone.
True - this point was already discussed, I asked opinions about:the fact of sending you (or anyone else) 5 IRC + a blank disk to obtain the sources.
(it might be that this was one of my lost messages)
Opinions on that?
> - you can't "distribute" the assembler/linker that easilly,
> iirc they are Quanta property.
> - you need at least TK2 to do the bootstrapping
That is true whatever the licence.
> This might be easy enough for QDOS tinkerers but should I dare
> to offer this on freshmeat.net they would in best case laugh
> at me. Look how many excellent OS's are available under GPL
> licenses, it doesn't have to be Linux.
So what? So SMSQ/E is different.
(...)
> > 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.
>
yes, but there is nothing in the licence that says that the binaries given away for testing purposes can't be sent via email - there is no restriction on that!
>
> > 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. This may mean that the 10 Euro may
> > ultimately be going to the wrong person. 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!
>
> imo this doesn't follow from this license and I don't care under which
> conditions TT would contribute.
>
I'm not sufficiently arrogant to reject TT's help if he wanted to give it.
Wolfgang
