Wolfgang et al, This has probably been one of the most passionately argued discussions ever held on this list. Shows how much people care. However, eventually the discussions will have to be ended, and just let's hope that a similar amount of energy goes into developing the software.
Perhaps its a good time to take stock of where we are. Clearly there are several camps, and not everyone is entirely happy with licence as proposed, but perhaps that is inevitable. Wolfgang, as proposed, it seems to me that the duties you are undertaking are rather onerous, and I wonder whether you realised what you have let yourself in for? I think that everyone realises that they are not going to enough money out this for it to amount to anything other than a labour of love. However there is a concern that this labour will go to waste if the restrictions behind the licence reduce the user base beneath its potential. Wolfgang, you do not think there are any new users to be had, and you want to ensure continuing support to the current band whereas Richard thinks that the user base could be doubled in a year, but won't be under the proposed licence. I think we should think positively and explore the potential for new users. Wolfgang, you are convinced that you are acting in the interests of the community, and will act in a reasonable way to include all developers and flavours of platform, but for your assurances to be worth anything, you need to be trusted. Unfortunately, from what has been seen, the Grafs have been warring with Roy for some time and Roy's apparent alignment with you means that there is no trust in that quarter. This is obviously a split we can ill afford, and I feel that although it should not be necessary, it is in our interest to add a clause to the licence that specifically allays the Grafs fears. I believe these to be that either they will not be allowed to distribute SMSQ/E with Q40/60, or that improvements upon it which they have sponsored will be excluded from the official distribution, or that they won't be able to sell it, except as bundled with a load of extra "commercial" stuff at premium prices (with the commercial developers taking a large cut). (They clearly would not want to direct any money Roy's way from what we have read). It may be that I have their concerns completely misunderstood, but with all the invective, at times it has been hard to separate the insults from the concerns. Dave is simply concerned that as a legal agreement, it is easy to walk a coach and horses through it, or hijack SMSQ/E. If we work on trust, then perhaps that is not to great a problem. There is general consensus that a blanket restriction on electronic transmission (of binaries) is putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of the developers. May I suggest the following additions/modifications to the licence. a) The Registrar undertakes to accept and distribute any submissions received that are essential for the continued support or development of any hardware platform. b) Any developer who informs the Registrar of the intent to develop particular facilities/enhancements will be provided with a list of any known conflicting or duplicate development activities. c) Any developer will be given a written explanation for any submission that is rejected. ( Do we need an appeals process?) d) Any commercial development requiring payment shall be kept as separate modules to the core operating system. No development will be accepted which prevents the core operating system to be used without the purchase of the commercial module. Users who so desire, can purchase the core operating system alone. e) Binaries of the core operating system can be freely distributed provided that they are accompanied by a prominent warning that a fee for registration must be paid before any support (or full manuals???) can be received. Wolfgang, I suspect that you will blanche at the last one, but I feel that it will work. If there are new potential users out there, this could allow the likes of Richard to find them (assuming that he can work under this revised regime). If there aren't any, then no harm has been done. I suggest, however, that only very limited documentation is made available without the support . I for one am a potential new user for SMSQ/E, but only if/when it is running under uQLx. These are only suggestions if you don't like them, then fine. As has been said, as the Registrar, you should do what you think is right. I do think however, that this discussion could go on for ever, preventing the development work from ever starting; so one last suggestion.. Post a cut-off date when the discussions end and you publish the licence. Regards, Jeremy
