Before replying to Phoebus' post, I'd just like to say that I have the utmost respect for someone who changes their mind after expressing a view for so long.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, [windows-1253] ������ �. ������ wrote: > If someone has copies of the list in-or-around '98 he will remember that > I had a huge discussion with Roy where we "agreed on dissagreeing" on > what open software is all about and why it should be supported, I did > use at that time the same analogy Tony Tebby used (the author and the > book) now... I like the intent of the new license - it's just a couple of specific areas I have trouble with. The license fee isn't one of them and never has been. The issue I take with it is this notion that all versions of SMSQ/E must be identical. I think this is not in SMSQ/E's best interest because it discourages development. For example, I think it is good for a version to add a feature that may not be supported by other platforms, *as long as it is an addition*, and the software style guide states that if the feature is used in software released for all platforms, the equivalent functionality should be included (if possible) for other platforms too. For example, say a machine is released that requires different code to operate an IDE interface. That version should be allowed to exclude code which is simply not relevant, like microdrive-related code, if microdrives could never be attached to the machine. (this may be a bad example) That IDE code may for hardware reasons be entirely irrelevent to every other version, but be required for this version just to achive the same functionality. Dealing with the machine at a hardware level, it seems silly to require that all those patches be included in all versions of SMSQ/E, and/or that additional features to support extra hardware be globally applied even if other machines could never support the hardware. I hope I explained this properly - it's a difficult thing to explain when I'm tired and can't find the words. Dave
