On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 07:43:36AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Can you and Peter please highlight the clause in the licence which prevents > copies of SMSQ.E binaries being given away or updates given at nil cost (I > seem to have lost my copy of the licence ahhh!). So far as I read it, so > long as the royalty to TT (or other commercial author) is paid, there seems > no restriction on the price actually charged for an SMSQ/E binary.
you read it correctly, however there are 2 problems. - the license fee may change anytime and Wolfgang can then prohibit free upgrades, the license explicitly says this. - nobody (not even official resellers) is allowed to sell or otherwise distribute modified (say bugfixed ) versions of the binary I will email you the license by pm. > I agree that if someone adds a commercial element to the main core, the user > will have to pay to get the latest version, but it is unlikely to happen in > reality and if it does, the user has the option not to upgrade. does he? Well if there were important bugfixes in the meantime even if they are completely unrelated to the commercial element there is no way anyone (except Wolfgang) could provide just the bugfixes, without the need to upgrade to the new commercial code. > In any > event, market forces dictate that it is unlikely that anyone will pay for a > change to the core which no-one actually wants, so why would the Q40/Q60 > users object to paying for the extra functionality?? Unfortunately the users have absolutely no choice whether they pay the extra functionality so market forces are ruled out. Wolfgang decides what goes into the official SMSQ version and your only choice is either buy the official binary or stick with some old version and old bugs. > > I would not mind if someone wants to sell "enhanced" binaries and > > claim extra money. Shouldn't the user have the choice whether he > > takes the free binary or something fancy? > > > > <<cut>> > > I agree that a user should have the choice whether to take updates to the > free binary or not.. However, it is not practical to keep several versions > of the code running concurrently and expect programmers to maintain all those > versions. we are not speaking about different versions, merely different configurations. For technical reasons (mainly testing) it should be obligatory that for every new feature added it should be possible to exclude it from the built binary. Once you have this ability than it is no extra effort. > The last thing we want (and hence the reason for keeping one main > core version of SMSQ/E) is for the resellers/programmers to be asked to fix a > bug in a free version of SMSQ/E for the Q40 which they have already fixed in > a commercial version which could need a lot more work to do, particularly if > they have relied on something added by the commercial version (whether it is > their own or not) this is extremely unlikely considering the bugs I have in my mind. > .... And according to your view of the licence, you would > want them to do this bug fix for free!! it was not my view of the license, the license doesn't say anything like this. My view is that if someone does the bugfix for free than the bugfix should be available - for free. Not bundled with some extra commercial software the user may or may not need. > This could end up with the old adage of re-inventing the wheel, as a > non-commercial programmer is asked to fix something in the free version which > has already been fixed (months, maybe years ago) in the commercial version... no, people would simply buy the commercial version if it has something they want. > > Frankly I consider all the arguments for a single official SMSQ > > completely bogus. > > > > There is also some philosophical and practical problems with royalties > > in the SMSQ license. > > If someone develops an ISO 9660 reader should users without CD reader > > pay the royalties for this? What happens if the author doesn't maintain > > his code for say 2 years or it becomes obsoleted by something else? > > Should other developpers maintain the code while the author still receives > > royalties? What happens if something is implemented in such a way that > > it turns out a year later it prevents or heavilly obstructs some other > > development? I have practice in operating systems development so I know > > this happens very often unfortunately. Having royalty payments will > > often lead to the situation where other developpers say let the guy > > who gets the royalties fix his code. > > <<cut>> > > Yes, I agree - that is why I have suggested to Wolfgang that the licence > include a clause stating that any additions to the core binaries (commercial > or not) must be supplied with a copy of the source code to the registrar, > stating whether the source is to be distributed as part of the source code > distribution. afaics this is exactly what the license says, or rather intends to say. It is not very reasonable imo because when the source is not distribuable Wolfgang is the only one who can recognise any problems in the code. > Provided further that if the registrar is unable to contact > the author for a period of say 6 months, the addition is deemed to be free > public domain code and the sources/binary can be made available free of > charge. I am really nitpicking here, but what if the author can be contacted but is simply uncooperative? What if he promises to fix the code and does nothing another 6 months? 6 months can be a really long time, if there is more cases like this you could easilly wait for years before you could do any real work. If everyone on the list thinks that including commercial code into the SMSQ core is very unlikely and nobody really wants it, just remove the possibility from the license. It will make everyones life easier. Richard
