On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 08:24:09AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
your email was a bit unreadable due to some strange characters in the text and lack of quoting. > “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”. > > Both statements are correct as far as they go. The licence fee may > change at any time, if there is a reason for it (i.e. an author wants > money, and this is accepted). I can prohibit free upgrades. It is > possible that bugfixes are included in new versions of SMSQ/E. > However, there is absolutely no reason why these would then be > linked: every update does not entail additional payment. This would > only happen if there were bugfixes incorporated into a new version > that also has new features. I’m not sure that this is very realistic, > since one will mostly attempt to keep new features and bugfixes > separate. But the possibility exists. saying it for the 3rd time - I don't have the gift to see the future so I will stick with the license. No matter how likely this possibility is, obviously you refuse violently to have it removed so there will be a reason you want it there. > Having it Richard’s way (i.e. bugfixes are always free) would > effectively prohibit the possibility of payment for new versions, > since any new (to be paid for) versions will incorporate all earlier > bugfixes. This is not what the licence tries to set out. I still don't see the necessity to include royalty financed code into the core SMSQ. If anything, it would make sense to make the core smaller. Otoh I see the urgent necessity to fix a few bugs in the core. If we don't agree on the "right" development model why not allow both development models? As far as I can interpret the license it grants you nothing less than total control of every technical and commercial aspect of SMSQ, absolutely no way for any alternative project. Was this your intention? > Richard also stated: > > “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 emphasis being on the “once you have this ability”. This ability > isn’t there. It would require effort (yours, Richard?) to build it into > SMSQ/E. there aren't new features right now so it doesn't require any effort yet. Perhaps new features should simply have the ability builtin before they get accepted? I am not speaking about some small changes where it would complicate matters more than it would help but things like adding a new filesystem where new code should be mostly cleanly separated. > This provision (i.e. that code may be distributed alongside official > versions) was included so that people (like you, hmmm?) may have > their code ”close to” an official version, even though they object to > the licence, as i heir code would not fall under the licence. I agree, > that this is bending backwards, but it is a compromise solution. I > take note that you don’t even want that. it is bending and it does not help. Richard
