Marcel Kilgus wrote: > Well, Peter sells hardware, of course he wouldn't mind the software > being totally free.
I never asked for SMSQ/E to be free of charge for me, or to indirectly reduce overall Q60 costs, as you seem to allude. As a matter of fact, I had offered compensation for Tony Tebby either on a per board basis, for a slight liberalization of your license, or a much bigger personal donation if the Q60 version of SMSQ/E was fully GPLed. No doubt I would have paid far _more_ than under your license! While you always circle around money, "free" has the aspect of "freedom" for me. I should add that in the case of QPC I find a strictly commercial license absolutely OK. You are the dedicated author of your product and there's no reason at all why you shouldn't ask for financial reward. BTW it would have been possible to place Q60 SMSQ/E under the GPL without affecting the commercial status of QPC at all. > I sell software, I wouldn't mind getting the > hardware for free, but that usually doesn't happen either ;-) > I think this pretty much sums it up. Not at all because you compare (your) profit to (my) turnover. The significant difference is, that when hardware is zero profit (and the Qxx is not even zero profit but loss for me) it still must cost money. I don't mind that my QL work is totally for free, but components must be bought, boards must be soldered. While software can be produced for free, if the author wants it so. You make money from QL work. I don't. Both is OK, but it's nowhere the same. Peter
