??? 5/11/2002 12:23:18 ??, ?/? Dave P
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??????:
>
>
>
>On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I just wanted to point out something to the general QL
world at
>> large: as you all know, SMSQ/E is being made available
publicly,
>> under a licence that was discussed at length here.
>> This licence is now the current licence for all versions of
SMSQ/E.
>>
>> Under this licence, only appointed resellers may sell the
software,
>> provided, notably, that a 10 euro payment is made to Tony
Tebby
>> for each copy sold.
>>
>> Today, D&D systems are selling the Q40/Q60. These are
>> machines that contain SMSQ/E in ROM (they cannot boot
>> otherwise).
>>
>> D&D have NOT even requested to become a software
reseller. They
>> are NOT paying the licence fees.
>>
>> This means that these people are currently selling
something
>> for which they have no licence and which they do not have
the right
>> to distribute - in other words, counterfeit software.
>> Doesn't this mean that they are software pirates?
>>
>> Even worse, this means that YOU, when you are buying
this
>> machine with this software, are also using counterfeit
software, and
>> by extension, when using the Q40/Q60, you are also a
software
>> pirate.
>>
>> Do you really want to be?
>>
>>
>> Wolfgang
>
>Wolfgang, this email of yours is wrong on so many levels.
>
>Aside from any legal flaws in your argument, and there are a
couple of
>great big ones, you have a responsibility to handle these
issues in a
>discreet and diplomatic manner. This message is indiscreet,
undiplomatic,
>and certainly libellous.
>
>As for the legal arguments, releasing software under a new
license does
>not automatically make that license applicable to all previous
or parallel
>versions. The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to
sell many
>copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license
or agreement not
>relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. Any such
activity is
>absolutely legal, and your accusation that it is not is not only
wrong
>(due to lack of evidence, not finding of fact) but places you
in a very
>VERY unenviable position.
>
>Up until this moment, I have felt you've been working in the
best interest
>of the SMSQ/E community, but having read this very ill-
advised post, I can
>only conclude that you do not posses the diplomacy skills
required of a
>registrar.
>
>Accusing others of impropriety without very solid evidence, in
such a
>public forum, is an impropriety in itself.
>
>You may be right, but that is hardly the point.
>
>Dave
>
>
>
