On 26 May 2002, at 3:00, Jeremy Taffel wrote:
>
> Wolfgang et al,
Sorry, but why "et al"? Do you mean everybody on this list?
(...)
> 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?
Now - yes. At the beginning ? No, not in the sense that I thought
this would raise THAT much trouble.
(...)
> 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.
Well, I can't force trust on anybody, can I? I KNOW that I have
acted "honourably" towards everybody concerned. If the fact that
"Roy is on my side" automatically makes Peter Graf distrust me
as you seem to imply (and which, with all respect, I hope is untrue)
then I can't do very much about it, can I ?
I think we must distinguish two problems:
- the development of SMSQ/E on one hand
- the sale of the binaries on the other hand.
As for the development of SMSQ/E, all I can and will do is go on
record -again- to state that my aim is to have coherent versions for
all machines on which SMSQ/E currently runs, including, OF
COURSE, the Q40/Q60.
If, as you state, there is distrust on that aspect from Peter Graf
(and he has NEVER told me that he distrusts me), then I can't help
it.
Please remember that, at least as far as my role of registrar is
concerned, I'm NOT responsible for any developement works
myself - in the very early emails in this repsect I did call for
volunteers for key developers....
As far as the commercial side is concerned, that is excluded from
my role of registrar. I am not, and don't want to be, responsible for
selling SMSQ/E.
I am willing to act, as a service to the resellers,and thus to the
community as a whole (at least I see it this way) to act as a
"collector" for the money due to TT (and potentially others).
If your concern is that a version of SMSQ/E will not be sold, and
specifically that for the Q40/Q60 to be clear about this, then all I
can say is that Peter Graf can EASILY become a reseller - you will
notice that I have stated this at various times, but, for the time
being, I have had no reply in this respect.
To be quite frank, I fail to see why this is a problem - there again,
let us distinguish between to cases : new Q40/Q60s sold (by
D&D?), and those machines that were already sold:
Concerning new machines, either the Q40/Q60 is sold with
SMSQ/E or not. If it IS sold with SMSQ/E, then the seller of the
hardware automatically is a reseller for the software. Again, I have
NOT been approached by anybody in this respect... If it is NOT
sold with SMSQ/E, then the buyer should ask himself why not...
Concerning old machines, the only question is that of an upgrade
to a newer version of SMSQ/E. Here, I could only counsel those
that have bought an older machine, to contact the person they
bought it from, or even other resellers...
> 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 don't think so. See what I have said above. All I can say, again, is
that if they want to become resellers - WHY DON'T THEY ASK
ME. And if I were to refuse (which I don't intend to), they could -and
rightly so- raise a stink here and everywhere.
> 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).
Ok the last point first. Why would they pay Roy any money, unless
Roy developped something that went into SMSQ/E and required
payment for it. I mean no disrespect to Roy here, but how likely is
that?
As t the rest: What can I do about their fears, if they are as you
say? Why should the licence, which is the document telling
everybody under what conditions one can use the software, be
concerned with Peter Graf specifically? Do I also have to makje
special provisions for, say Marcel Kilgus, or Jerome Grimbert, or
Richard Zidlicky; or Thiery Godefroy or I don't know who else?
I HAVE gone on record, and will do so again, to state that I don't
WANT TO exclude any contribution. To exclude anybody
contributing to SMSQ/E, I would have to have a pretty compelling
reason - one of these would be a development that excludes use of
this developement on other machines, even though it could have
been done in such a way NOT to exclude other machines. Is that
unreasonable?
> 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.
Yes. I have tried to keep the invectives out of my emails.
> Dave is simply concerned that as a legal agreement, it is easy to
> walk a coach and horses through it, or hijack SMSQ/E.
I would like to have more explanation on that. I wil publish the
future licence to be in a few days.
What NO LICENCE can do, is stop anybody from looking at the
code, seeing how it works, and then redoing the stuff entirely -
provided the resulting code is not too close to the old code.
To be quite frank, is anybody is silly enough to do that (sorry, but
in my mind this would really be a silly behaviour - I hope this is not
interpreted as an invective) then - OK, do it. There is not much I'm
inclined to do over that. I still belive that time would be better spent
on doing things collaborativeley, and making the existing stuff even
better...
> 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.
OK. Let's address this problem: electronic transmission of binaries.
The ONLY case this poses a potential problem is when using test
versions (since, otherwise, your are not allowed to transmit
binaries).
What does the official statement say:
Quote
8/ For testing purposes only, authors having made one or several
changes/additions/modifications/adaptions of SMSQ/E may, as an
exception to the prohibition of distributing code stemming from the
official release version in binary form as mentioned above, give
away binary version of their code, together with binary versions of
SMSQ/E, to not more than 10 persons in total (whatever the
number of test versions), provided that the persons receiving these
test versions agree to destroy them:
- after a period of 2 months, or
- at the time the changes/additions/modifications/adaptions for
the test version are included in the official release version, or
- when they are notified by the author that a stable version is
now available
whatever comes first.
Unquote
Does it say that you may not do this electronically?
No.
Perhaps I should have said so explicitly?
Apparently, yes. Mea Culpa.
> May I suggest the following additions/modifications to the
>licence.
All suggestions are welcome - provided I don't have the duty to
implement any or all of them.
> a) The Registrar undertakes to accept and distribute any
>submissions
> received that are essential for the continued support or
>development of any hardware platform.
No. This has to be reworded to take into account that I may refuse
a development which is not in the spirit of things, i.e. could profit all
machines but (deliberately or through shoddy workmanship)
doesn't.
Moreover, this will go into an annex to the licence, not the licence
itself. I refuse to be bound by too strict rules.
> 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.
I intended to do that anyway.
> c) Any developer will be given a written explanation for any
>submission that
> is rejected. ( Do we need an appeals process?)
No, my decision is final. However, I hereby officially authorise
anybody to publish, here or elsewhere, my refusal and the
explanation I could give as to why I refused a submission.
Don't you think that this will keep me "honest" ?
> d) Any commercial development requiring payment shall be kept
> as separate
> modules to the core operating system.
No, absolutely not. There MAY be commercial developments that
are integrated into SMSQ/E. I don't know that there WILL be.
If it can be done that way - OK. If not, then that's just too bad and
the development will be incorporated into the "core".
> No development will be accepted which
> prevents the core operating system to be used without the
>purchase of the
> commercial module.
No. See above.
> Users who so desire, can purchase the core operating system >
alone.
No, this would be entirely against the philosophy of having a
coherent OS.
> 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.
No, I don't agree. Distribution of binaries via the resellers, is, IMHO,
a better way. This also applies to your other comments below. I
have stated the reasons for this a number of times, do you require
this again?
> Wolfgang, I suspect that you will blanche at the last one, but I
>feel that
> it will work.
Oh no, I don't take these things too presonally. I just don't agree
with you.
> 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.
Wee, yousee, what prevents you, from my pont of view, to get
SMSQ/E under UQLX, apparently, is not the licence, but the fact
that one man, Richard, Zidlicky, is unwilling to work under it.
> These are only suggestions if you don't like them, then fine.
The question isn't really whether I like them or not. The question is
whether they will be able to create an envrionment where
everybody, including the resellers and authors, will be able to work.
As yo lentioned earlier, there is a rift - I see that rift between those
who, like me, want to ensure continued support fro SMSQ/E, and
see that as coming in a great part from the resellers and
comemrcial work, and others (like Richard) who want a true "open
source" (incuding binaries). Like you, I have come to the
conclusions that these positions are ot reconcilable. I try to do
what I think is right.
> 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,
Thanks - I have already had a half hour to begin drafting the
licence, and will publish it here in a few days. I would like some
input on it when that is done.
Your idea of of cut-off date is great,a nd I will make sure to include
it.
Wolfgang
