----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
snip
>Lets not get too excited about a
> hypothetical increase in users.
The Linux distribution route offers potential. Maybe not new users, but
there are plenty of lapsed users who cut their teeth on Sinclair machines
and now use Linux. Who knows how many would be interested. Richard made a
guess, Wolfgang made another, and I imagine the truth lies somewhere between
the two. But, even small numbers of new purchasers would be welcome, I
assume.
> >
> > 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.
> I do not have any more influence over Wolfgang's decisions than anyone
> else. Are you implying there is some sort of cabal here ? Many of my own
> suggestion have been turned down just as strictly.
Not at all. possibly the word "apparent" was wrong. I meant "as perceived by
the Grafs". No criticism of you was intended.
> >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).
> Any addition of commercial add-ons to the 'registered distributions' was
> been ruled out a long time ago.
> a. It would lead to too many versions to support
> b. It would lead to a spiralling cost of the product which would be
> unacceptable to the users and hard for the trader to maintain and
> distribute. We have therefore settled with the idea that all changes to
> the released version are free.
This is not what Wolfgang says. If it has been agreed, then lets put it into
the licence.
> >(They clearly would not want to direct any money Roy's way
> >from what we have read).
> I would make no money for any Q40/Q60 version of SMSQ/E since it is sold
> on ROM with the machine and changes would be free upgrades. (I must put
> this phrase into a cut'n'paste scrap pad somewhere. I have lost track of
> the number of times I have typed it.)
But if their ROM could only be sold in a form containing loads of your
commercial offerings, (Which Wolfgang seems not to exclude as a
possibility), you could insist on them paying you for each one sold.
> > 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.
> >
> Somewhat of a shame that.
Agreed
> >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.
> Bit of a wide ranging clause this. Who will say what is essential ?
Wolfgang's judgement, but at least it lets everyone knows what the policy is
> >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.
> Seems reasonable.
> >c) Any developer will be given a written explanation for any submission
that
> >is rejected.
> This will add a lot of work for the registrar
Depends on how many submissions he rejects.
> >( Do we need an appeals process?)
> Only if you fear bias. I would say that Wolfgang's decision should be
> final.
I agree,
> >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.
> I think that was agreed ages ago
So why does Wolfgang not agree. He is strongly opposed to this.
> >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).
> Maybe we could have a shareware version which will not save or one which
> times out but then again who would do the work needed to do this ?
> >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.
> This only adds to my argument above. Making SMSQ/E fit Richard's
> suggestions will not add to the general QL user base just to the SMSQ/E
> one. Not an inconsiderable thing to do in general but the implication
> that we will have more QL Users.
In my place of work alone there are at least half a dozen ex-Ql users, who
now use Linux, but could well be interested in using uQLx if they had:
usable file system
high colour
internet connectivity, with decent browser and email.
All of which could be attainable if we work together
Jeremy Taffel
