On Fri, May 23, 1997 at 10:18:55AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 22 May 2002, at 22:37, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> > 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? so it does allow people to distribute SMSQ somewhat more realistically but still doesn't help developpers. Consider someone posting a message to 'smsq-developers' saying "hey folks, there is a bug in xxx_asm, send me your disks and a few IRC's so I can snail you the fix". I don't assume this is how you imagine development should work so please describe what you have in mind. > > - 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. it is, and it will allways remain a completely exotic piece of software with this licence. Richard
