??? 5/11/2002 6:54:13 ??, ?/? Roy Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??????: >The crux of the matter to many of us is the sentence: >'All this of course is true provided that Peter DOES carry the right to >modify/resell/develop SMSQ/E (which I believe is true)'. > >The whole point of the licence was to stop people modifying the code >without some central controlling authority - which would be Wolfgang. >Already he has been sidelined by this. While you all fret about the 10 >Euros the real disservice is to modify the code and not say how. This >could cause, in the end, major problems with existing software and this >is the major reason why the licence exists. Although the 10 Euros was >agreed as a thank you to TT after years of dedicated service we also >wanted the code to remain controlled and Jochen and I did not want to >have to state that the software we sold was not guaranteed to work on >any of the Qxx systems. This is the situation we have if we allow the >continued sale of unlicensed code.
Roy, the compatibility problem isn't necessarily a problem. I mean if you get an SMSQ/E w/ background IO, better Fs and TCP/IP stack all rolled into one... I really don't care if Quill runs into it :-) That's the price of progress anyway :-) However I am fairly convinced that there was a separate agreement between Peter and Tony... (I don't remember where exactly I picked that up but I am certain that I did) and in that case D&D can do as they please. Despite the bitterness in his email (justified or not -as i said I don't have all the facts on the case so I cannot tell or judge and even if I had I wouldn't at least not here :-) - non withstanding), Dennis makes a very interesting point on which nobody but D&D and their customers know.... how many Q60 were sold WITH SMSQ/E on ROM? We all know that QDOS Classic is a viable (and very good if you ask me after I've seen it on the Amiga) alternative to SMSQ/E and it makes absolute sense that many people would prefer over SMSQ/E as it reduces the total amount of the steep (for a good reason) price tag of the Q60. Since i am a hopeless romantic and no matter how much (being a Greek) I like a good fight ;-))) I will theorise that there is another possibility that this is an information age "glitch" and not malicious intent (Which I had no signs of from both involved "parties" which I have found in personal dealings to be honest and trustworthy... that goes for Dennis, Derek AND Wolfgang (Names sorted alphabetically)). I observed in mailings that I exchanged with D&D in the past that some got lost... That was way before any of this discussion (in the timeframe that is inferred from the various emails).... can it therefore be COMPLETELY unreasonable to say that D&D never received Wolfgang's mailings? There are people that cannot email me on my adelphia mailboxes as they are controlled by various spam blockers which throw out many mails and that's one reason that I created my own... Is it totally impossible that something similar happened here? Many times, emails that I send to demon.co.uk mailboxes get lost in the way (that has happened with you AND tony both of you using demon). It wasn't your fault and it wasn't mine either :-) BTW: Roy, did you get my email re SGC/SMSQ/E etc? Phoebus P.S. I am not taking sides here, I would just wish this not to go further... however that's the last i am going to comment on the matter...
