On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 07:36:20AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 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. here some bugs I can think offhand: in the partition reading code, the code to parse unlimited number of extended partitions is there but simply fails. Some users reported problems even with 4 partitions, don't have positive evidence that it has been fixed. There is also the bug that LBA harddisk addressing is never used although the code is there, perhaps a little piece in the ATA ident routine is missing. Encoding of HD geometry in filesystem headers of every partition is a horrible and dangerous kludge, qualifies as buggy design for me. Using LBA instead of CHS would 99% circumvent the worst consequences of this misdesign. > > > 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? no. You may buy support contracts (or register or whatever they call it) and than you have a better chance your favourite bugs get fixed. However everyone can download the complete sources, binaries, upgrades and bugfixes completely for free, or lacking an unmetered network connection order any CD eg from cheapbytes for prices around 5E. > > 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. > " you have misunderstood the question so here it is again. Under �5 I am not even allowed to get reimbursement for the material and p&p when distributing the source - is that right? Should you insist on snail-only distribbution this would mean that I would pay approximately 10E for each and every copy of the sources I would send out to someone, simply not acceptable for me. > > > 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. come on, what hinders you to give a clarifying statement in the license that the source will be always available. I don't care if you claim you can revoke it anytime, it is much better than what I have now. > > 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". The license does already try to cater for many things so adding this one won't hurt. Simply say it is the one of the purposes of the licence to allow development and use of SMSQ on as many platforms as possible. > > > > 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). I am sure you would have lot more developpers would SMSQ happened to become open source a few years ago. I have read statements of 2 of them. > > 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. this is not a good reason to make the licene in a way that will make open source developpers to go away. Richard
