On 13 Jun 2002, at 14:11, Richard Zidlicky replying to an email in reply to Peter Graf wrote:
> > 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. > > you do not have an opinion on it. You just plainly refuse to think > about a reasonable license. OK, fine I don't have an opinion on it, then. I thought I did, though, and I'll still abide by my non-opinion... > this is deceiving at best. Some serious developpers (not me) already > explicitly wrote on this list that may contribute to SMSQ depending on > the conditions of the new license. Deceiving, in an open email where I voice my opinion(oops, sorry, non opinion)? I think not. As to the rest : the operative word being "may". > I do firmly believe that this *was* the chance to overcome the > split between QDOS, Minerva, QDOS Classic and SMSQ. Since SMSQ/E is the successor to QDOS, there is no "split" as such. > > Oh, I have read exactly what you said, and my answer still stands. > > So you still laugh about it? Oh yes - the idea of me being a sinister fiend coralling in SMSQ/E to avoid letting it into freedom is just too much to take seriously. > Well I sure did have a few nice laughs > about your perception of software development, licensing, copyright > issues, GPL and a few other things. Again, that's absolutely fine with me. I'm at peace with my opinions. > Perhaps we would get a bit futher with more humor. However, simply > laughing at someones arguments isn't the way to convince me, quite the > opposite - especially since you have left a whole bunch of my > arguments simply unanswered. Since (i) I wasn't replying to your email but to Peter, that's not surprising and (ii) your "arguments" are just a rehash of your older arguments, that's not surprising, either. > You are the one presenting ridiculous arguments here so that turns up > the question why you don't present reasonable arguments Ah - but the most reasonable argument is totally unreasonable in the ears of those refusing to hear it, isn't it? > I am not at all surprised someone smells conspiration. Mulder mode on ---- I am. Conspiration means at least 2 persons doing it. So, who am I conspiring with/against? I presume you suppose that I am conspiring against Peter Graf -I fail to see who else it could be. However, since the system under which PG will fall is the same as for all versions of SMSQ/E, I fail to see how that is a conspiracy against PG specifically. Or else, I am conspiring against all of the SMSQ/E world. Oh yes, that must be it. Mulder mode off ---- > I think you could dispel > those concerns quite easilly if you would take arguments seriously > instead of laughing at them. I think that, failing to do exactly what YOU want me to do, I will NOT be able to dispell anything. I have tried, and now I frankly think that I have tried enough. Wolfgang
