On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Just DON'T assume that I haven't tried to settle this previously in a
> discreet and diplomatic way.
Dude! :o)
Ok, so this was a mistep because you got the wrong tone, even if the
message was right. There is now public awareness of the ambiguity of D&D's
license position. Chances are that they ARE ripping off SMSQ/E, but it's
still a very strong allegation without some lighter questioning first,
even if you had reached a point of going public.
> > 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.
> MAY ?
> Do they?
I don't know, and nor do you. Only D&D can clear up the situation.
> > You may be right, but that is hardly the point.
>
> Oh, but it is.
> The problem is that, right now, I'm NOT concerned with 'The Grafs'
> as you put it.
> I have no idea how "the Grafs" are involved in this. All I see is that
> d&d are selling the Q60, without a licence.
My mistake. I think of "The Grafs" as the originator oif the rather spiffy
Q60, which is made by D&D. No doubt, the Graffs had an arrangement for
SMSQ/E which they may have transferred or sublicensed to D&D to make quite
lawfully. We do not know.
Unfortunately, knowing may be very destructive, as knowing the license
fees paid means knowing exactly what D&D's sales are, and therefore what
production is, and if you knew how few units they may have sold, the scene
may become even more disheartened than it already is.
It's not the message, it's the voice.
Dave
