Jochen Merz wrote:
>You could have kept buying fairly static SMSQ/E licenses at about >40 EUR, as it was agreed with Tony - until Wolfgang got something >going which would help you in every way - less payment [...] As you know well, it would have also been acceptable for me if Tony continued to work, under the old conditions, and I had offered Tony more money to implement several improvements. If Tony gives up, and allows open source, this changes the situation. You still have a commercial developer working for your SMSQ/E target under your strictly commercial NDA. Tony Tebby was the only *commercial* developer who would work for native 68060 hardware on SMSQ/E. >Wolfgang is doing all this in good faith, I'm sure, and I am also >sure that he may be willing to change if it becomes clear that >things don't work the way they were planned to work (hoping >that it is not deliberately sabotaged). Who do you suspect of deliberate sabotage? Were all those compromise proposals which have been turned down, deliberate sabotage? >Remember, the difference between the previous status of SMSQ/E >and the license as drawn by Wolfgang gives you most benefit >and chances - already as it is. OK I remember and repeat again in short what I said in my first posting: * Previous SMSQ/E status: Tony working commercial for my hardware design. OK. * Next SMSQ/E status: Tony allowing open source. OK. * Current SMSQ/E status: Strictly commercial NDA under construction by a third party. Attempts to force Tonys work for my design under these conditions. Not OK at all! Unless I had an affordable commercial developer for 68060, I would have to go crazy to see this as "most benefit and chances" for Q60. >I think it would only be fair to Wolfgang to stop complaining >now and give him and the license a chance. As you know well, Wolfgang is welcome by me to lead the development. The problem are just your strange strictly commercial conditions, which lock out good developers. >Who keeps complaining about "open source GPL" or nothing? So tell us at least one single person who has asked for "open source GPL or nothing"! >Can't see much of a compromise attitude there. Do you mean you see no compromise attitude in the compromise proposals made, e.g. by Dylwin and Joachim? Peter
