On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:46:55 +0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
On 15 Oct 2003 at 14:31, Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. �τό wrote:
In other words, you chose your example in such a way that we have two licences
conflicting with each other.
Why should the SMSQ/E one be the one to be changed?
Why can't the other one be changed to suit SMSQ/E?
To use a counter example, suppose the licence for the software to be incorporated
had a provision that every user had to pay a million US $ every minute?
Would we have to accept that, too?
You fail to see the argument. Linux (or anything else) if its license is already a Free Software License by definition it cannot be turned into something that is NOT Free Software.
On the other hand if something is NOT Free Software it CAN be turned into Free Software (with the provision that it this cannot be revoked as it defeats the term).
Therefore you can move from a closed to a Free Software license but not vice versa. Especially not when the software that you are porting is already covered by a F.S. license.
This is the same argument than the one before. You take something that has its own licence and ask that SMSQ/E be changed to accomodate it.
But I am not asking for anything. I am merely making a point why SMSQ/E is for some reasons unsuitable at times for software development by proponents of the Free Software idea.
Just for the record, that is not what that row was about, IIRC.
If I don't remember correctly I am sorry for the misunderstanding... we're not going to fight over this of course. I am just making a point why SMSQ/E is not Free Software and how that affects potential development, that's all :-)
<snip>
Please feel free to correct me if I have mistated it !!!!!!
These people may sell a specific version of an OS. The OS is "normal" copyrighted software so it follows that: - These people have no access to the sources. - They may make no changes to the software.
Yet they build a machine and an emulator on which this software may run. (I **presume** that the orginal author made the necessary changes).
For some reason, the OS on both machines is incompatible.
(again, I ** presume** that this is due to changes made by the
original author, else I fail to see how there could be incompatibilities).
I assumed the exact same binary. So no incompatibility there.
The sources are then made open with the current SMSQ/E licence.
Yes.
Both of these people "patch" the software (apparently with the purpose of making
it compatible to each other) whilst not having nor wishing (?)
access to the source code which is now freely available.
More or less correct.
Question: is this legal?
I'll take this example as stated without asking myself why these people, now having access to the source code, don't use it and, apparently, don't decide to talk to each other (or do they?).
Doesn't matter for the example that I set. :-)
I'll also presume that they did not approach, for whatever reason, the original
author, or whoever maintains the source code, to have their "patches"
incorporated into the software.
I assume that they have no intention to do so at all as they both disagree with the current license as it it's more like the carrot and the stick kind of thing...
I'll further presume that the "patch" is some kind of software that adds to/replaces
some parts of the original software, by changing the binaries as distributed.
Correct.
FInally, I'll also answer just from the point of view of the licence.
Indeed, I don't want to get into the legalities of "Patching" software
even though I understand that normally, you aren't allowed to change
copyrighted software, and the argument may certainly be made that by "patching" it
you are making such a change.
That is incorrect. If you had NO access to the sources of the original software then your patch is legal regardless of what it does and if it affects the system software. Otherwise half of the globe with say new explorer replacements for windows (in effect patches) or third party bug fixes to shell.dll for example (again WIndows) would be illegal, but they arent :-)
There are, in my mind, three questions here:
1 - May you distribute the "patch"? 2 - May you distribute "patched" versions of the binaries? 3 - What about an agent?
1-
For the first question, in short, then, the answer would be that the licence
doesn't care.
Teh licence, as it stands now, cares about
- distribution and change of the source code
- distribution of the binaries
So, if you later make a patch which you supply separately, this isn't a problem with
the licence.
As mentioned above,the author may protest against patches being made, but that
would be under general copyright law.
2- As to the second question:
- What you are not allowed to do is distribute the binaries (with or without
the patch) unless you are a reseller, so the point whether you may distribute
a patched version is, in itself, moot unless you are a reseller (with one
proviso, see below)
- If you are a reseller, then you may distribute the official version.
You may not distribute a patched version since that is not the official version.
Proviso:
If you had prior permission from the author to distribute an earlier (patched)
version, and if that permission has not been withdrawn, you may still continue
to distribute that.
- You may distribute the source code under the usual provisions of the licence.
3-
And finally, "agents".
Basically, if you are entitled to appoint an agent, then that agent cannot have
more rights that you do.
Thus to the agent, the same as above applies.
I hope this replied to your exact example. (of course, any resemblance to an actual situation would be a pure coincidence).
It did but the point I was making is that all the discussions for the past year on the conditions that the license makes plus the patching of SMSQ/E etc, lead anybody with an average brain like myself to think that is prohibited by the license to patch the software externally And distribute the patch commercially or as a free software.
You can see how confusing the status can be just by that.
Not to me, if I understood your example correctly.
See above.
Thirdly. here is why I think that internet distribution is necessary.
Point 1. Linux (the DEFINITION of Free Software) would not be possible without the Internet Point 2. No OTHER Free Software, nor the GNU project would be possible without the Internet
Ah, so since Linux and other free software wouldn't have been posssible without the
Internet, it follwos that SMSQ/E must be distributed on the Internet, too?
No, not necessarily, but at least IMHO for it to BE free software and to fullfil to the maximum the idea of multiple input to the sources it should be. Of course I cannot tell you what to do (or disrespect the license in any case) but nonetheless it is a precondition to free software. The whole post was actually the reply to your previous comment that more or less SMSQ/E is Free Software. My position is that it is not.
Point 3. Internet distribution of the sources can lure MC68K hobbyists to
the platform whereas Wolfgang Lenerz known and respected thoughout the QL
world but most probably an unknown entity to say an Atari ST user or a
simple coldfire board manufacturer/hobbyist will not (Unless of course he
changes his name to Linus Torvalds ;-) hehe just a joke here)
I'll make an effort and call myself Wolfgangus Lenvalds, if that would help...
Hehe I wish it would. I would be willing to change my name as well :-) Regardless of that there are several m68k groups out there with many many members that could be interested. But for many people the hassle of writing even an email, and wait just takes the fun out of it :-)
<snip>
This is the same point as point 3 to my mind. It has been debated here before, and
again, I just fail to see that happen.
A (say) Linux aficionado with no prior QL connection would take up SMSQ/E?
I dare say that you wouldn't win half of them - just none.
(And, as an aside, I have had requests for the source code from people I have never
heard of before, nor after...)
I have seen an SMSQ/E version for the QXL I sent running under Linux myself. Unfortunately this version is "unofficial". The person that did it has strong opinions for Free Software himself and he will not release any changes or even submit them to the tree.
Beside that however I think that in order to see if I am right, we have to release it through the net. Even for the heck of it... you never know until you try as my dad always told me :-)
Point 5. A publicly available CVS server gives any project the "air" of
maintenance. A snail-mail only distribution does not (That of course
applies to a stagnant webpage with a couple of files to download but still
the exposure is greater). This "air" is attractive to many people.
I could joke about a lot of hot "air" here.
Seriously though, how serious can people be if they are just influenced by the air of
something - what will they bring to us?
Depends. From very to not at all. That doesn't change the fact that a maintained *something* looks a lot better than an *unmaintained* other thing.
To close, all my responses to this thread (which I think is a very nice thread and it was extremely civilised with a lot of nice and constructive disagreement btw) are not meant to instruct ANYONE what to do. I cannot tell nobody what to do with their lives let alone their software. Again I repeat why things may not go as well as they should in the area of SMSQ/E and why I think that it would be better if such and such changes were made. But I am only voicing my opinion. Of course I will continue selling SMSQ/E and even release (if accepted) the changes I mentioned at an earlier email, but that's just my choice :-)
All the best,
Phoebus
--
Visit the QL-FAQ at: <http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/faq/> (Still uploading stuff!)
Visit the uQLX-win32 homepage at: <http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlx.html>
Visit the uQLX-mac home page at:<http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlxmac.html>
