On 13 Oct 2003 at 23:11, Peter Graf wrote: > Well and we felt we walked 100 miles toward a compromise while you didn't > move an inch.
Fortunately enough, then, the amendments to the licence, in reply to your requests (and those of others) have been done publicly, in this forum, so I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions. > I just said there's no common ground, a > realistic view, that did not contain negative judgement of your attitude. > I'd be glad if you also respect mine. Well, as I said earlier, I do. You don't like the licence and don't want to do any work under it? OK - That is your opinion and, contrary to what you think, I respect that. But don't try to reinvent history here. The very distinct impression I have is that 'common ground' would only be reached when your point of view was adopted totally. > > > and at the same time no freedom to develop > > > SMSQ/E under open source conditions. > > > >Oh rubbish. > > To share the definition of open source with the outside world is not > necessarily rubbish. I'm sure the outside world welcomes the reminder of what your view of open source is. > >This "lack of common ground" seems to stem from the fact that you prefer > >to profit from > >developments made for other systems (eg. Marcel's new wman etc) and not > >chip in > >anything of your own. > > I never used any version of SMSQ/E after those from Tony Tebby, so I've no > idea what this "profit" should be. OK, noted - but, fortunately enough, most Q60 users don't seem to share that point of view and use the new facilities... Wolfgang
