----- Original Message -----
From: "Jochen Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea
Hi Jochen
Did I say Marcel did not count, I think not, as I replied to him,
I use his software, and no doubt will for a long time to come. I
should have said 'equally' instead of 'most', mea culpa. Both
yuo and Marcel are reasonable people, as I am sure the Grafs are.
It is very sad for folk like me, who have enjoyed the QL and its
deriveritives for many years, to see all this public 'blood
letting'. The end result of which is going to be a split from
which the QL I fear will not recover. I appreciate your feelings,
along with those of Marcel, Roy, Dilwyn and others. But the fact
remains if this continues, the end result will benefit no one. A
locked room seems the only way forward. I know you feel you have
all compromised and bent over backwards, and probably you have,
but if you don't go that extra yard, it may end in tears. The
same must be said to the Grafs and anybody else who feels a
grievence.( a bit like the middle east really)., if somebody does
not move then disaster. thanks for explaining again your views,
I can understand where you are coming from, and that you realise
this must be resolved, if at all possible, SOON.
Best wishes
Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.macnamaras.com
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> > So, from a user
> > point of view, Peter Graf seems to be the one with most at
stake,
> > his is the biggest commitment, he is, apart from Nasta, the
only
> > one developing the 'QL' ( of whatever flavour) and therefore
his
> > views are most important.
> So Marcel does not count? He's not important?
>
> > Good luck to them, without
> > them the QL is dead
> Sorry, Q40/Q60 is not QL, nor is QPC. Without QPC, the QL
> would be dead.
>
> > As a user, as I see it,
> > the Q40/60 'lobby' were not involved in drawing up the
Eindhoven
> > license,. WHY NOT.
> Peter was invited, and he initially said it would come.
> Also, what was discussed at Eindhoven was a base, open for
> discussion. No final decision there, so no problem anyway.
>
> > Why are their views less important than those.
> Who said that? Views of everybody are going around here
> on the list for quite a while - the license has changed
> because of various views.
>
> > who sat at a 'round table' and cobbled together a license
that
> > suited them
> ... you probably deleted the mail then, where it was said.
>
> , why were Quanta not at this meeting, why not other
> > meeting in UK and US, to get the input of the bulk of people
who
> > are affected?
> So there was no input here in the list for the last few weeks
...
> er, months?
>
> The meeting was open, and everybody who would DIRECTLY be
> affected was there, or could have been there.
> Marcel (contract with Tony), me (contract with Tony), Roy
> (English SMSQ/E reseller), Peter (Q60 SMSQ/E reseller ... he
> bought SMSQ/E licenses off me - something he does not need
> to do anymore with the new license, provided he accepts them
> and he (and/or D&D now) become resellers).
>
> You seem to think SMSQ/E was just a giveaway? Who said that?
> I am doing business with Tony longer than anybody else ...
> well, what sort of person would Tony be to scrap the contracts
> just like that?
> This is exactly why he wanted us to get together at Eindhoven,
> all the people being directly involved (including Wolfgang).
> He wants the people involved to get something out sorted
> together. Yes, the important word "together" again.
> Any kind of split is not useful.
> The QL world not only consists of a Peter Graf and everybody
> has to accept it the way he wants it or no other way.
>
> Tony is wise enough not to change his mind because of some
money
> offered by Peter because this will screw the license and
everybody
> will lose out in the end (as mentioned before).
> Joachim has discovered this in a recent email too.
>
> So, there are all those people who got an idea together,
> set it out in public for discussion, change the license
> accordingly where it makes sense, get it into a state where
> nearly everybody says: OK - I go along with it, not perfect,
> but acceptable ... you see, there is this "together" I was
> talking about some time ago, even with people I (and probably
> Wolfgang too) have (unfortunately) never met in my life before
> at any QL show etc.
>
> Well, and what happens: there's somebody complaining
> "No, this is not exactly the way *I* want it".
>
> Mike, nobody planned to put Peter outside, that was and is not
> the idea. Everybody involved tried to be reasonable and find
> something which suits everybody to a high degree - a
compromise.
> Wolfgang has done a very good job, and Tony still says that
> if whatever is OK by Wolfgang, Marcel and me (because of
> the existing contracts) is OK for him.
> I am happy with the license Wolfgang put together in the
> end, and apart from the discussion at Eindhoven I went along
> with all the changes brought in from the list discussion.
> Honestly, we're all doing it to keep SMSQ/E alive on all
> the various systems. Most Q40/Q60 customers are QPC customers
> too, most are software customers as well. Why the hell should
> we try to separate them? We would be killing our user base
> for future upgrades (which will happen if all the trouble here
> stops finally, Marcel gets the new colour window manager out
> etc. etc.) - I am sure you understand the point.
>
> I have repeatedly said: "together" is the key word, and more
> or less everybody on this list has seen that there is a lot
> of together except from a certain corner.
>
> Although I have said it several times: Peter, please try to
> get reasonable and give the license a chance. Spend your time
> in convincing people that a joined work, "even under the
> current license", will be much better for your products and
> the users in general.
>
> Jochen
>
