On 11 Jun 2002, at 22:21, Peter Graf wrote:
> > Obvously not knowing he GPL. I'm afraid that the discussion about GPL (and whether I know it or not) will lead us too far astray. Let's just say that I will abide by my opinion on it. (snip) > Do you really see what you are accusing me? Hey Peter, why am I accusing you of something? I only point out to what your proposal may lead (in my opinion). (...) > No, under the current scheme, the Q60 target will practically be > frozen, because no commercial developer is left for 68060 > > > > development TT was the only one. A dead target can not benefit > from "advantages". There are so many answers to that (eg. TT was the only one - he isn' any more -isn't that a better situation?). But, generally, I would dispute that statement. You seem to fear that the Q60/Q40 will be left behind in the development cycles. My role as registrar is to make sure that a coherent version for all machines exists. I have already set out a number of times that, in my mind, this means that the Q40/Q60 will profit, just like any other machine, from the general development that is done for SMSQ/E. > If you really know better about Q60 development "advantages" than me, > give guarantees the work I pointed out will be done under your NDA. If > not leave it to the open source developers to decide under which > license they can work. > If I read your latest emails here to this list correctly, you seem to fear that there will be no development for the Q40/Q60 any more, because those who might be able/inclined to work with the Q40/Q60 are so miffed about the licence as it stands, that they won't do anything under it (dare I mention Richard). However, I still think that if these people refuse to work, then this is by THEIR choice. The way around this is not for them to try to bully their way into a licence with which the copyright holder, after all, agrees, by means of threats such as "this way or no way". Please don't misunderstand me - I do respect Richard's opinion that, philosopfically, he "can't" work with such a licence. But I profoundly and fundamentally disagree with him over this. Give it a try and see! > The current scheme is the best way to further split the QL world. Open > source might re-unite SMSQ/E with other parts of the QL world, and > developers who have previously not worked for it. I don't believe that for a semi-second. No people who have not previously worked for SMSQ/E will suddenly come out and say "hey, a great new licence, let's do wome work under it". > >Those who insist on establishing their own commercial NDA based > >on TT's work, and on future free work of others, should consider that > >they also prevent this income for TT. In favour of forwarding to TT > >EUR 10 each for a few boards, and discouraging our best 68060 > >developers. -------------------- > > > >Whoa there. > > > >Would "those" who do these bad and evil things please step > >forward. > >Hmmm - nobody? How strange. > > Oh, do you accept Open Source now? And what allows you to come to that strange opinion? (....) > I have already asked you who exactly turned my proposal down. > You keep it a secret. I don't know your secrets. Aha, so now I keep vital info from you. OK, let's explain (again!) the genral scheme under which I work the licence, and deal with proposals: I generally draft the text (e.g. of the licence). I then ask the opinion of those who were at Eindhoven - for no other reason than that they were there and helped set up this scheme. I then either ask TT about it, or if there is a general consensus that I can live with, make the proposal (or rejection of proposal) public. An exception was your offer for 2000 EUR. Since that money would go to TT directly, I only asked him or an opinion. The result, unfortunately for you, was the same (see my other email in reply to Robert). Peter, if you seriously think that I am in any way out to defraud you or the Q40/Q60 or the SMSQ/E for it, then I can't help you. > However strange it may seem to you, TT himself would allow Open > Source. No. > >Since you raise the queston of money, > > Just to put things straight: Those insisting on a commercial NDA have > raised the question of money, not me. I would happily accept a > non-commercial license. But if my money is needed so the Q60 > developers and users have freedom to work and enjoy, well, I will give > my share. Just to put things straight - nobody here asked you for money. All I am saying is that the end user, who gets a product pays money out of which 10 EUR go to TT. YOU have offered money, I haven't. > I'm not in a generous mood, I'm with the back against the wall. I don't understand this comment. Who puts your back to the wall. What or who stops you from selling SMSQ/E for the Q40/Q60 right now? > >why not do the following: become a reseller but DON'T charge for the > >Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E - and pay TT 10 EUR for each copy thus "sold". That > >way, nobody loses out: TT doesn't because he gets fair money > > Would be a question for Tony, not me. However I appreciate his work. > >You don't, because you don't pay too much for "a few boards" > > If I pay EUR 1 or EUR 2 or EUR 10 or EUR 45 per board or whatever is > IRRELEVANT if the open source DEVELOPERS needed for Q60 won't work. > When will you finally see that my intention is Q60 SMSQ/E > *** DEVELOPMENT ***? OK. Let's turn this around then, since this echoes the preumption I made earlier, about you fearing that nobody wuold do any development on the Q40/Q60 anymore. Since you are willing to put up 2000 EUR, and since Richard said he would only work for serious money, offer them to him... That way, you would get a commercial developper for the Q40/Q60. OK, the result would still be sold by the resellers only, but since you are worried only about development, this should work. > >The user doesn't because he doesn't pay for the Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E. > > Of course the user will lose out without good Q60 SMSQ/E development. > Do you think the Q60 users prefer a frozen OS to save a few EUR? And why should it be frozen? > Sorry, but whoa again. With the > >provision that I haven't talked to TT about this at the time of > >writing, I would like to say: what lobby? Am I a lobby? > > The answer is your secret. I don't know who needs to reject all the > compromise proposals from Dylwin, Joachim, Richard, me and others. Well, if I reject them, who else is to blame? Where is the lobby? > >To be quite frank, the opposition between the defenders of "code > >freedom" and the sinister "lobby" preventing the good code to escape > >into that freedom is so exaggerated that I can't help but laugh about > >it. > > Better read just what I say and don't build fairytales beyond that. If > you want Q60 SMSQ/E development, allow open source or at least a > compromise. Oh, I have read exactly what you said, and my answer still stands. Instead of fantasizing about fairytales (if this were one, we'd already have a happy end), consider that the compromise is already there - except on the one point where there can't be a compromise, since this is a yes/no situation: are the binaries freely distributable? Yes/No. Should we allow a split in the source code between Q40/Q60 on the one hand, and the rest of SMSQ/E on the other? yes/no. etc. In such a situation, there can be no compromise - unfortunately!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wolfgang
