On 13 Jun 2002, at 22:09, Mike MacNamara wrote:
> > Any sensible person is not going to get invoved or take sides in > this, that is why Wolfgang is not hearing feedback from users, I > think. Isn't there a difference between "getting involved" and "taking sides"? I'm not asking anybody to take sides here, just to voice their opinions. > However nobody ever accused me of being sensible. :-))) >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. I, personally, would dispute that statement. For me, QPC is just as important. > His is the financial investment, and D&D and Richard > share his ambitions. Good luck to them, without them the QL is dead, > and anything that puts obstacles in their way is not condusive to > furthering SMSQ to the benfit of the user. After all all the buyers > of Q40/60 are QL users who are simply upgrading as we have constantly > done since the first black box. This whole topic reminds me of Alan > Sugar of Amstrad trying to block QL development for his own reasons. > > I am completely neutral in this debate, I feel sorry for > Wolfgang, who is showing signs of wear. As a user, as I see it, > the Q40/60 'lobby' were not involved in drawing up the Eindhoven > license,. WHY NOT. First of all, I don't think it is a "lobby" - let's avoid these words that have been used in a rather bad context... I seem to remember that, at least, Peter Graf was fully aware of the EIndhoven meeting. IIRC, he said here that he was too ill to come. . > Why are their views less important than those > who sat at a 'round table' and cobbled together a license that > suited them, THEY ARE NOT. I HAVE taken the views expressed here into account. It is just that, on a fundamental level (totally free binaries/restricted binary distribution) we don't agree. > why were Quanta not at this meeting, I don't know > why not other > meeting in UK and US, to get the input of the bulk of people who are > affected? Because, then, we would still be having meetings! > It is no wonder 'conspiracy' is banded about. Oh, poppycock! I'm sorry, but this is just unbelievable. The process of how this came about has been set out here - several times IIRC. >Wolfgang, if > you don't listen to those who do not share your opinion, you will kill > the patient that you are trying to save. Yes, that is true -but apparently, you (and others) and I have a different opinion of what "listening" means. Apparently, if I don't agree with some, then that is because I haven't listened to them. Wolfgang
