Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

[wlenerz]

On 14 Oct 2003 at 22:13, Peter Graf wrote:

.
 I also think Marcel and Wolfgang work hard. Wolfgang does it without 
 financial reward, a fact that has my full respect and appreciation. I hope 
 that those Q40/Q60 developers who, unlike me, see enough reason to follow 
 Marcel's SMSQ/E route, will continue to see some progress and have fun!!!

Is there really no way, under this licence, that you could join the fun?

Let me, for a moment, try to put QPC and the Qx0 in parallel.

OK, I know, one is a machine, the other a platform etc - let's not open this 
debate for 
the time being, it is not important here.


These are both GREAT machines, and I have the highest respect for Marcel and for 
you, because you both built something that I could only dream about.
I have no hardware design capabilities, so conceiving and building something like the 
Qx0 was totally beyond me.
And Marcel's programming skills are so far beyond me that he might as well live on 
another planet.

To some extent, QPC and Qx0 might be seen as competing with each other, (I've heard 
this being said) even though, for me, they are definitely not.

Unfortunately, today, one of these platforms (QPC) is actively maintained by its 
author, 
the other (Qx0) doesn't seem to be, at least as far as SMSQ/E is concerned (and, quite 
frankly, the Q60 only interested me as a QDOS compatible machine, if I want to run 
Linux, any old PC will do - and they come cheap).

Now, Marcel has gone to great pains to make sure that all of his efforts are useable 
on 
the others machines, even to such an extent that he didn't just dunk me his code and 
tell me to adapt it (whih he could simply have done, and nobody would have found 
anything odd with that) but he actually programmed, e.g., Q60 specific code.

But still, you have a situation where one platform is being maintained by what some 
(you?) see as its competitor. And here, I can only salute Marcel's dedication - I'm 
not 
sure I would have had the moral fortitude to act this way.

However, you can't expect Marcel to do Qx0 specific development only. 
For example, who will try to take Thierry's CD driver any further? Who will do 
software 
development to take the Q60's sound system further? Shouldn't you be involved in 
that?
Isn't it a pity that you aren't?

I would LOVE to have you with us.



All the best
Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor

[wlenerz]

On 14 Oct 2003 at 18:44, Dilwyn Jones wrote:

 
 Do I hear the sound of rattles being thrown out of prams once more,
 children?

rattle, rattle

 For goodness's sake, bury the hatchets now (and I don't mean in each
 other's heads). 
grin

 This is rapidly turning into another all too public
 slanging match we can well do without. 

Can we?
Why shouldn't Peter air his grievances out in the public?
Why shouldn't I reply?
This IS a subject that affects many (perhaps even all) of us.

Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor

[wlenerz]

On 14 Oct 2003 at 14:52, Jerome Grimbert wrote:

 Oh, excuse-me, but I'm only using (and developping it too) on Q40.
 I won't call that a waste!

No, it isn't, of course not.

Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor

[wlenerz]

On 14 Oct 2003 at 12:06, Fabrizio Diversi wrote:

 Again,
 It should be clear that I am not an expert on this matter , i do not have any 
 special expertise .

Perhaps - but at least you TRY (and succeed) to do something with the sources.

 Just one think , I have as my hobby to play with QL and its derivatives.

Like just about anybody on this list.

(...)
 On the other side, if we want to prove the license is wrong, I hope soon someone 
 will 
 submit something relevant (for q60) to him to see what happen.

It has already happened - your code profited ONLY the Q60. Jerome also submitted 
code with a heavy Q60 bias (event though he also tried to make it compatbile with all 
other machines). And why not?

As already pointed out earlier, I would have to have a pretty strong incentive NOT to 
allow something in.
That would, mainly, be if something breaks compatibility between machines (in the 
sense that other machines would be voluntarily excluded)

 Conclusion : hoping no one will be upset, the only thing I would like to see is 
 enhancement 
 whatever they come.
Don't we all!!

However, I still think that the ost important thing would be to get some application 
software, a point in which, apparently, Peter Graf and I share the same view.

Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor

[wlenerz]

On 14 Oct 2003 at 20:28, Tarquin Mills wrote:
(...)
 I like the QL because it (the QL community) is in general polite and 
 friendly.

Yes, that's true - and it makes the occasional storm only stand out that much 
stronger.

But, always the optimist, I hope that this might clear the air for a more productive 
collaboration.

Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Isn't it open source?

[wlenerz]

On 14 Oct 2003 at 13:55, Bill Cable wrote:

(...)
 I knew the QL was very special the first time I switch it on and am pleased to
 see it receive credit as a key motivator for the Open Source Movement.


:-)


Just to put a further cat amongt the pigeons (I'm in a provocative mood today), let me 
ask whether SMSQ/E, as it stands now, really ISN'T open source.

Let's define open source as being software which you can do anything with:
Compile it, change it, distribute it in source and complied form.

With SMSQ/E there are two restrictions:

1 - IF (and that is IF!!) you want your code in the official version, it has to be 
vetted 
by me - or rather by the registrar.
Is that SOO unreasonable?
2 - You may NOT distribute the compiled code (unless for testing purposes etc...).
BUT
1 - you can become a reseller
2 -  the sources have everything needed but an Assembler to be readily compiled.

Wolfgang



 -- Bill
 
 
 

Re: [ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor

[wlenerz]

On 14 Oct 2003 at 19:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

(...)
 Forget this idea. I never sold nor trusted Q60 SMSQ/E versions after Tony Tebby.

I can understand that you didn't sell any.

But not trust any newer version?
Do you mean there are, what, timebombs in the code? 
Somebody, on purpose, builds something into the code that hampers 
the Qx0 version?
Apart from the (probably unintended) slur that this implies on those 
who submit code (and on me), I find it difficult to follow the logic of it.

After all, the source code is supplied (if you want it).
So apply the old german saying - to trust is good, to control is better- 
and check the code if you want.

Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

[Phoebus R. Dokos ( . )]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:11:16 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 14 Oct 2003 at 22:13, Peter Graf wrote:

.
snip

To some extent, QPC and Qx0 might be seen as competing with each other, 
(I've heard
this being said) even though, for me, they are definitely not.

I do not think that the Qx0 and QPC are directly competing with each but 
they do indirectly.
To explain: Basing an OS around an emulator, tempts users to totally 
abandon hardware for software only.
Once this is total, then the QL idea will be all but dead. That is not to 
say that emulators do not serve a purpose,
on the contrary; they can act as complimentary tools (and they do so) in 
many occasions as for example software development.
(Many systems rely on software emulation running on Windows or Unix or 
other platforms for testing of software before it gets to the real 
hardware.)
That's VERY good and VERY helpful (Ie software development of even the 
PSION suite was done on alien hardware, or modern Symbian development is 
done on Unix and Windows).
However (and that is the user's preference not Marcel's doing of course) 
when the emulator becomes the only place where the software is run, then 
first the hardware becomes totally obsolete and then the emulator itself. 
If the trend for emulation-based only QL work continues, then we might as 
well totally abandon QPC/QemuLator/uQLx etc and rewrite QDOSMSQ (to use 
Thierry's term ;-)  in a higher level language and use it natively on PCs, 
MACs and what have you.

The purpose of existence of any QL derivative OS is to run on hardware 
after all and to take advantage of that hardware. If that doesn't happen 
what is the point of still using the OS?

It is (and according to my belief illustrated above) therefore imperative 
that the users choose to invest in hardware instead on only software (in 
the best situation both) if there is any point in all of this.
Marcel (as well as Peter) each in their own, chose to create something to 
satisfy a demand that existed. The fact the users brought the two 
solutions (Better term than platform ;-) against each other in a way 
(see articles in QLT before the whole SMSQ/E license change by people not 
involved in this) that the creators of the solutions were brought before 
an existing situation beyond probably their initial reasoning for creating 
what they did.

Unfortunately, today, one of these platforms (QPC) is actively 
maintained by its author,
the other (Qx0) doesn't seem to be, at least as far as SMSQ/E is 
concerned (and, quite
frankly, the Q60 only interested me as a QDOS compatible machine, if I 
want to run
Linux, any old PC will do - and they come cheap).

I don't think that the Q60 was ever sold as a Linux machine (although it 
runs it very capably) but with the *ability to run* Linux. (Similar to 
saying PC with the ability to run QL software via QXL or QPC!.. It's not 
primarily therefore a QL ;-)

Apart from that I fail to see how the Q60 is being developed actively? 
Software development and hardware development are distinct processes. The 
Q60 is completed and working fine. Peter designed and implemented the 
hardware and we're asking him to make the software for it too? (Don't get 
this in the wrong way I am just asking a legitimate question). Nobody asks 
Marcel or you to design hardware to fit the software right? Just as we 
never asked Miracle to write SMSQ. TT did that!
The fact that Peter has the ability to contribute software is unrelated to 
the fact that he designed the hardware.

Now, if you mean by developing to create new hardware solutions more 
extended than the current Q60 offering that's a different process that 
involves a substantial and immediate investment. Even to make my new ED 
drives it took me several hundreds of dollars and that's an easy task... 
imagine tackling a whole machine in say a ColdFire implementation with PCI 
bus... can it be done? Sure... will it be done? Probably not, and one of 
the reasons was explained by Peter... he doesn't feel that the current 
license of SMSQ/E can help a potential design.

Now, Marcel has gone to great pains to make sure that all of his efforts 
are useable on
the others machines, even to such an extent that he didn't just dunk me 
his code and
tell me to adapt it (whih he could simply have done, and nobody would 
have found
anything odd with that) but he actually programmed, e.g., Q60 specific 
code.

But still, you have a situation where one platform is being maintained 
by what some
(you?) see as its competitor. And here, I can only salute Marcel's 
dedication - I'm not
sure I would have had the moral fortitude to act this way.
However, you can't expect Marcel to do Qx0 specific development only.
For example, who will try to take Thierry's CD driver any further? Who 
will do software
development to take the Q60's sound system further? Shouldn't you be 
involved in
that?
Isn't it a pity that you aren't?
I think that the issue is a lot more complicated than that. 

[ql-users] Q40 Rom

[Jerome Grimbert]

Hello,
I will provide a lot of details just to request a small information!
This is mainly for hardware people...

The provided Eprom with the Q40 are two 27C1024, making it for 256KB.
Looking at my latest SMSQ/E (which must be 3.01), the current size of
the file might be only a few KB short to reach that limit.
It is stated in the Q40 manual that upto 1MB of Rom can be fitted.

And now for the question:
 - Which Eprom to use for 1MB ? (I'm wondering about a set of 27C4096,
  but would like confirmation before trying that the hardway)
  (and maybe, there are some cheaper Eproms that would works too ?)

 - How would the 1MB Rom be mapped on the address space (is ROM1 simply extended,
   pushing the top limit, or is it more complexe ?)

Re: [ql-users] Isn't it open source?

[Phoebus R. Dokos ( . )]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:11:17 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 14 Oct 2003 at 13:55, Bill Cable wrote:

(...)
I knew the QL was very special the first time I switch it on and am 
pleased to
see it receive credit as a key motivator for the Open Source Movement.


:-)

Just to put a further cat amongt the pigeons (I'm in a provocative mood 
today), let me
ask whether SMSQ/E, as it stands now, really ISN'T open source.

Let's define open source as being software which you can do anything 
with:
Compile it, change it, distribute it in source and complied form.

With SMSQ/E there are two restrictions:

1 - IF (and that is IF!!) you want your code in the official 
version, it has to be vetted
by me - or rather by the registrar.
Is that SOO unreasonable?
2 - You may NOT distribute the compiled code (unless for testing 
purposes etc...).
BUT
1 - you can become a reseller
2 -  the sources have everything needed but an Assembler to be readily 
compiled.

Wolfgang

The following abstract is I think necessary as a reference to what is 
really free software -At least that's the definition I adopt- (Full 
version at http://www.fsf.org):

-
Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the 
concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in 
``free beer.''

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, 
study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four 
kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs 
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 
2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the 
public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the 
source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you 
should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without 
modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone 
anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that 
you do not have to ask or pay for permission.

You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them 
privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they 
exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to 
notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or 
organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of 
overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with 
the developer or any other specific entity.

The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms 
of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified 
versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for 
conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no 
way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since 
some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom 
to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.

In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved 
versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the 
program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition 
for free software.

In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long 
as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to 
revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the 
software is not free.

However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free 
software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central 
freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when 
redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other 
people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central 
freedoms; rather it protects them.

Thus, you may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may 
have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your 
copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even 
to sell copies.



Now my note:

I would have no problem with a restricted version of these if that 
pertained only to the money part:

ie You have the right to give the software away for free but if you choose 

Re: [ql-users] Q40 Rom

[Fabrizio Diversi]

I am interested too, I would like to add also why not useflash eprom.
Hoping in an answer .

FabrizioJerome Grimbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,I will provide a lot of details just to request a small information!This is mainly for hardware people...The provided Eprom with the Q40 are two 27C1024, making it for 256KB.Looking at my latest SMSQ/E (which must be 3.01), the current size ofthe file might be only a few KB short to reach that limit.It is stated in the Q40 manual that upto 1MB of Rom can be fitted.And now for the question:- Which Eprom to use for 1MB ? (I'm wondering about a set of 27C4096,but would like confirmation before trying that the hardway)(and maybe, there are some cheaper Eproms that would works too ?)- How would the 1MB Rom be mapped on the address space (is ROM1 simply extended,pushing the top limit, or is it more complexe ?)Yahoo!
 Mail: 6MB di spazio gratuito, 30MB per i tuoi allegati, l'antivirus, il filtro Anti-spam

Re: [ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor

[Marcel Kilgus]

Forwarded answer from Peter to my last mail, posted with his
agreement. I leave it at that.
---
Marcel wrote:

But if I asked for the Qx0 schematics (the equivalent of my software
in the hardware world), would you give them to me?

Yes of course, as soon as my turnover breaks even with my expenses, and I 
have actually worked for free, not for loss. Before that point I would 
probably hold them back, because commercial competition could 
(theoretically) cause me direct loss. When I write software I have no 
expenses, so this can not happen. I will, for example happily give QLwIP 
away free and open, when it has reached the necessary maturity.

  BTW it would have been possible to place Q60 SMSQ/E under the GPL
  without affecting the commercial status of QPC at all.

Would only have worked for the very first version. As soon as I want
to integrate one simple fix somebody else did to the GPL version I
would be in trouble.

I don't think so. QPC is separated from SMSQ/E anyway. And the problem of 
GPLed templates can be overcome by accompanying the GPL with an appropriate 
definition of linking. So, if you liked it, QPC could even use all of a 
GPLed Q60 SMSQ/E (68060 emulation? ;-) and remain commercial.

  You make money from QL work. I don't.

As a matter of fact I have 4 digit EUR expenses for my QL meeting
travels. My QPC earnings reduce that to, hm, pretty much the same 4
digit value...

If it is so, then keeping things commercial makes no sense at all. BTW your 
enormous amount of QL travelling seems more like a hobby, than commercial 
costs :-)

Peter

Re: [ql-users] defragment

[Marcel Kilgus]

Dilwyn Jones wrote:
 The two programs running in the background are DirectCD and AVG
 anti-virus.

Anti-virus programs are always a source of trouble and sometimes big
slow-downs.

Marcel

Re: [ql-users] defragment

[Darren . Branagh]

Nope. As far as I know, I never said a word.

Actually, I'd forgotten about it to be honest!!

Cheers,

Darren Branagh,
Bank of Ireland - Cards And Loans Business,
Nassau House, 33/35 Nassau Street, Dublin 2. Ireland.
Tel: 1850-530-530   Fax: 01-6706813.

BOI Group Data Classification -




   

  Dilwyn Jones   

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:  QL Users List [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]   
  sco.net cc: 

  Sent by: Subject: Re: [ql-users] defragment  

  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  g.uk 

   

   

  15/10/2003 10:30 

  Please respond   

  to ql-users  

   

   





 I am replying to this privately but I have to state publicly (here
comes
 the blackmail -Ed. :-) that I will refrain from sending you also a
really
 good set of utilities to do these jobs more efficiently until you
answer
 me the following question:. In which episode of the Tweenies (TM)
have
 you participated?

 Heheheheee
How on earth did you find out about that??? Bet a certain Irishman had
something to do with this???

Tweenies Go Up A Mountain. They bought the train ticket from me at the
ticket office where I once worked. I wasn't supposed to appear in it,
my colleague who was to have appeared in it was late for work and as
they were in a hurry I had to take her place. Took about an hour to
film, I was in shot for about 5 seconds I think.

On a more serious note, thanks to all who replied to my defragment
query.

It might well be down to the fact that there are two programs running
which might be having an effect. Scandisk runs fine and reckons (even
on advanced) that there are no errors. The slow down has happened
gradually fairly recently, implying it's not just one new installation
or deinstallation, which is why I thought it might be down to
fragmentation.

The two programs running in the background are DirectCD and AVG
anti-virus. I also have a huge folder with images of my QXL.WIN QL CDs
(PD library, Emulators CD, Clipart CDs etc etc). Once I'm sure I've
got up to date backups, I'll take up the suggestions and have another
go.

I'm spending every spare minute on Launchpad at the moment as it's so
close to release, really hoping to have it at the Byfleet workshop,
and the demo version on my website by the weekend - the only
incomplete bits at the moment are the text file viewer accessory
(nearly finished, but it is important as it's used for the Help files)
and the calculator accessory. Can live with the slow
down in Windows (QPC2 is OK, no noticeable difference) while I do
this, especially as the helpful replies received offer good hope of
being able to solve this.

--
Dilwyn Jones











This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please 
notify us immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete this E-mail 
from your system. Thank you.
It is possible for data transmitted by email to be deliberately or
accidentally corrupted or intercepted. For this reason, where the
communication is by email, the Bank of Ireland Group does not accept 
any responsibility for any breach of confidence which may arise 
through the use of this medium.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept 
 for the presence of known computer viruses.

  

Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

[wlenerz]

On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos (è  á.  ç) wrote:

 I do not think that the Qx0 and QPC are directly competing with each but
 they do indirectly.
 To explain: Basing an OS around an emulator, tempts users to totally
 abandon hardware for software only.

Oh boy, do I disagree with you.

Allow me to take my own example.

I just have to use a PC at the office. A good word processor, spreadsheet, PRINTER,
Internet access etc are just things I need.

So are other, homewritten, programs.

Now, the word processor runs on the PC. So I need a PC. There just is no way around
it.
Am I going to put 2 computers in my office? Have twice the noise? Use twice as much
electricity? etc
No way. I could justify that at home (it's a hobby) but not at the office, where I 
receive
people.
OK, so a PC it is. Now, I also need some homemade programs.
If I can't have them under some kind of SMSQ emulator, I'll need them on the PC.
So I start PC programming - what do you think will then gradually happen?
Sooner or later all of my programming will be done on the PC, because, the
homemgrown programs are also done at home.
Exit SMSQDOS

So, for me, QPC is a very real reason TO CONTINUE TO STAY WITH THE QL
WORLD!

(...)
 However (and that is the user's preference not Marcel's doing of course)
 when the emulator becomes the only place where the software is run, then
 first the hardware becomes totally obsolete and then the emulator itself.

OK, I can agree ith that -it was one of the reasons I did buy a Q60.

 If the trend for emulation-based only QL work continues, then we might as
 well totally abandon QPC/QemuLator/uQLx etc and rewrite QDOSMSQ (to use
 Thierry's term ;-)  in a higher level language and use it natively on PCs,
 MACs and what have you.

Don't tempt the devil...

 The purpose of existence of any QL derivative OS is to run on hardware
 after all and to take advantage of that hardware. If that doesn't happen
 what is the point of still using the OS?
Oh well, of we go into this debate again - QPC does run on hardware and can take
advantage of it - I can read CDs, I can use USB printers etc...

 It is (and according to my belief illustrated above) therefore imperative
 that the users choose to invest in hardware instead on only software (in
 the best situation both) if there is any point in all of this.

Yes, and despite the above I still agree.
But for me, conceptually, there is not that much difference between an QPC machine
and a Q60 machine.

(...)
 I don't think that the Q60 was ever sold as a Linux machine (although it
 runs it very capably) but with the *ability to run* Linux. (Similar to
 saying PC with the ability to run QL software via QXL or QPC!.. It's not
 primarily therefore a QL ;-)
No, but what can you use it for if not to run SMSQ/E (ok, Qdos classic, but I want
MORE than a QL from a modern machine).


 Apart from that I fail to see how the Q60 is being developed actively?
 Software development and hardware development are distinct processes. The
 Q60 is completed and working fine. Peter designed and implemented the
 hardware and we're asking him to make the software for it too? (Don't get
 this in the wrong way I am just asking a legitimate question). Nobody asks
 Marcel or you to design hardware to fit the software right? Just as we
 never asked Miracle to write SMSQ. TT did that!
 The fact that Peter has the ability to contribute software is unrelated to
 the fact that he designed the hardware.
Again, I disagree in practice. If the hardware is there but no software to take care 
of it,
what use the hardware?

 Now, if you mean by developing to create new hardware solutions more
 extended than the current Q60 offering that's a different process that
 involves a substantial and immediate investment. Even to make my new ED
 drives it took me several hundreds of dollars and that's an easy task...
Sorry, I don't understand the reference to making ED drives.

But let's use this as an example. If you want ED drives, you have to upgrade the OS for
it. And who could help there better then Peter Graf?


 imagine tackling a whole machine in say a ColdFire implementation with PCI
 bus... can it be done? Sure... will it be done? Probably not, and one of
 the reasons was explained by Peter... he doesn't feel that the current
 license of SMSQ/E can help a potential design.

Noted.
I disagree, of course.

(...)

 I think that the issue is a lot more complicated than that. Unfortunately,
 in order for the Q60 hardware to be fully utilised, a lot of processor and
 hardware specific code has to be written. Unfortunately the current
 situation of the license permits that only for one's own leisure.

Wrong.
See my other message re the open software question.

 The
 license is what it is and has to be respected regardless of one's personal
 opinions. A solution to that would be extensive patches on the code and
 the list has seen a tremendous disagreement over that in the past. As for
 the sound 

Re: [ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor

[wlenerz]

On 15 Oct 2003 at 10:29, Dilwyn Jones wrote:

 That implies the rattle is still in your hand and not yet been thrown,
 right?

No, it's the echo.

(...)
  This IS a subject that affects many (perhaps even all) of us.
 As long as something constructive comes out of it (e.g. agreement on
 updated Q60 SMSQ/E).

But we won't know that until we discuss...

Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Isn't it open source?

[wlenerz]

On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:59, Phoebus R. Dokos (è  á.  ç) wrote:
(...)
 The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

SMSQE - OK

 The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
 (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
SMSQE OK

 The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom
 2).
SMSQE OK (for source code)*

 The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the
 public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the
 source code is a precondition for this.
SMSQE OK (for source code)*

* and, of course, if it is incorporated into the official version!

 A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you
 should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without
 modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone
 anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that
 you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
This is all true for the source code, with the exception that your aren't allowed to 
charge
money for it.

 You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
 privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
 exist
True for SMSQE
. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
 notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

ALSO true for SMSQ/E since, if you don't want your code included in the official
version, you can do with it what you like, except distribute binaries and put it up on 
a
web site.
.

 The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or
 organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of
 overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with
 the developer or any other specific entity.
Still true here.

 The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms
 of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified
 versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for
 conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no
 way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since
 some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom
 to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.

There is a restriction here for the binaries.

 In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved
 versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the
 program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition
 for free software.
You do have this access.

 In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long
 as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to
 revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the
 software is not free.
Revoking the licence would only means that you revoke for the future - everything don
euntil then would stand as is.

(the rest also applies to SMSQE)
Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

[wlenerz]

On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos (è  á.  ç) wrote:

(all cut)

Just a very quick reply to one point.; I'll probably rply to more of this
later.

There is NOTHING
- in the licence
- in what I have ever said

that stops you from developping code specific to a machine.

You want to replace the rechp routine with one that uses the Q60's
memory management?

OK.
Fine.
Super.
Do it.
You want to do something more with the Q60 sound?
OK.
File

etc...

(got it?)


I have repeatedly stated on this list that OF COURSE I would include
code that beneftis only one machine - provided, it is not done in such a
way to exclude all others on purpose.

There is ONE caveat - I want all machines to be able to compile all
versions.
If my Q60 breaks down I want to be able to compile the Q60 code on
my Atari, or on QPC or on my GoldCard.

Not unreasonable, is it?

Wolfgang

[ql-users] error lines

[Dilwyn Jones]

Anyone know how to get the statement number within a line when an
error occurs?

Obviously, ROMs which support ERLIN return the line number. It would
be helpful to get the statement number as well for debugging
purposes - what I'd like is for my debugging routine to return
something like:

REPORT #channel
PRINT #channel,'AT LINE ';ERLIN;':';error_statement

It's probably stored in the basic variables area somewhere, though I
can't seem to find it.

--
Dilwyn Jones

Re: [ql-users] defragment

[Phoebus R. Dokos ( . )]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:37:50 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Nope. As far as I know, I never said a word.

Actually, I'd forgotten about it to be honest!!

Cheers,

Not Darren's fault...
It's not indeed an Irishman ;-)
The fault is all Rich's :-) I was asking him if he knew of any proper (ie 
not speaking American English) Tweenies DVDs for the daughter (She's a big 
fan :-) and he told me that there's one with Dilwyn...
Needless to say that I made a point of getting it :-) Now that I know the 
title I will (plus they are extremely cheap in the UK)

Phoebus

*Tweenie clock... where will it stop?*... It's QL time!
(c) BBC ;-)
--
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

Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

[Phoebus R. Dokos ( . )]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:58:19 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos (  .  ) wrote:

(all cut)

snip more


I have repeatedly stated on this list that OF COURSE I would include
code that beneftis only one machine - provided, it is not done in such a
way to exclude all others on purpose.
Well the thing is that in order for Qx0 to benefit lower capability 
machines will be excluded but not in purpose. Just like they don't support 
sound or extra modes because of limitations of the supporting hardware a 
similar thing would happen because of the processor.

The goal I think would be to create a set of parameters where all machines 
should operate the same and anything above that would be an extension... 
Ie you want virtual QLs running within the OS then you can have it if your 
hardware supports it etc...


There is ONE caveat - I want all machines to be able to compile all
versions.
If my Q60 breaks down I want to be able to compile the Q60 code on
my Atari, or on QPC or on my GoldCard.
As it stands currently that wouldn't be possible unless the tools change, 
I agree but I don't see that as a severe problem. Knowing George Gwilt, 
his GWASSL/GWASS might just do that :-) (From what I gather from his small 
comment).
BTW: I disagree with your argument on QLT regarding the use of GWASS. 
GWASS can benefit more than one users, its actively maintained as opposed 
to the archaic QMAC and moreover it is current and best of all FREE. Since 
George by his account is converting all the macros for use with SMSQ/e 
sources what would be the problem of using it? It can be the tool that can 
help bring about changes to the OS, suitable for high-end machines. As for 
the lower end machines that cannot support the extra instructions the lack 
of tool can be circumvented with the use of conditional assebly.

Not unreasonable, is it?

Neither is the above right?
:-)
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

Re: [ql-users] error lines

[Phoebus R. Dokos ( . )]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:22:32 +0100, Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

Anyone know how to get the statement number within a line when an
error occurs?
Obviously, ROMs which support ERLIN return the line number. It would
be helpful to get the statement number as well for debugging
purposes - what I'd like is for my debugging routine to return
something like:
REPORT #channel
PRINT #channel,'AT LINE ';ERLIN;':';error_statement
It's probably stored in the basic variables area somewhere, though I
can't seem to find it.
--
Dilwyn Jones

Isn't it REPORT supposed to show the Message tables?

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

Re: [ql-users] Isn't it open source?

[Wolfgang Lenerz]

On 15 Oct 2003, at 10:56, Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντό wrote:

(...)
 Well that's restriction 1... As seen below you have to be able to
 distribute legitimate copies both in binary and in source form so... it's
 not OK

That's the restriction, alright.

(...)

 To your (*) that alone breaks the premise of Free Software. Plus that you
 really do not have FREE access to the source code (Free as in Freedom) as
 the Source code is only available by the registrar. Although it is free
 (as in beer to get) that's not the point. There should be the possibility
 of multiple points of access to the code (ie me putting up a website where
 everyone that wants it can download it).
Well, you CAN give it away on a CD, it's just Web access that is
restricted.

 To that I have to add  that I have no problem paying for media and
 shipping charges when I get the source code in a CD, from you or anyone
 else.
Yes, I don't think that's the problem.

(...)

 As I said I have no problem with the money part. Indeed I find it better
 than charging money (although it might help to charge copying fees maybe
 that could even be sent to TT).
OK, let's forget the money part, then.


 However you are not *REALLY* allowed to distribute copies as a further
 distribution even unmodified turns the software into unofficial! (It's
 in the license). A copy made by a third party (accepting the money
 precondition as it stands now) should be official in itself.

Why?
Define official. Is there an official linux? No, of course not.
If you were to make enormous changes to the source code,
distribute it with instrctuins to compile and and everybody used
that, would the official bit make any difference?
()


 Again I beg to differ. You HAVE to be able to distribute binaries.
As you said, there we difer.

 Plus if
 you want your changes to be part of the sources we HAVE to notify one
 person only. A decision is not made collectively which defeats the
 purpose. It's fundamentaly different (and this is in no way a critisicm on
 your objectivity personally, just a fact) when one person is in charge
 than a set of persons operating in a democratic environment. I prefer the
 latter as it fits my personal set of beliefs.

Ah, I see where this is going now.

Yes, I can understand that. So, you want a say of what goes into
the sources or not.
Seeing as many of us can't agree on what direction everything
should take, getting a general agreement will not necessarily be
easy - opr even feasible.


  The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or
  organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of
  overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with
  the developer or any other specific entity.
  Still true here.

 Not really if you use binaries created by you, these are unofficial
So what?

 (...)

 
  There is a restriction here for the binaries.
 

 Exactly right and it's a big obstacle to the free software idea. Moreover
  from the wording above that means also that when sold SMSQ/E should also
 include the sources if the user wants them
Well, I would really take exception to the sources being sold. There
is nothing to stop a reseller to sell a copy of the binaries, and
distribute the sources along with it, for free.


  You do have this access.
 
 Not really. Free access in the internet age, means that the software can
 be accessed by anyone at any time (ie on a server) via CVS or otherwise.
 Even if you do not choose to do so, somebody else that has the sources
 should be allowed to give the sources without them being deemed
 unofficial. It's logical to have a central point of access to maintain
 uniformity, but acceptance of this should be voluntary by the users (I
 don't know of anyone that wouldn't agree to this as long as they HAVE the
 option) and not compulsory. Now users don't have that option. It's a
 matter of perspective first and foremost. Everyone would prefer to get
 their sources from the official point if they were given the choice, but
 this HAS to be a choice.

Again you can distribute the sources (though not through the
Internet). I fail to see why that is so paramount.
(...)

 Not all of it but anyway, I think I made my point too :-)

Happy you did.
Wolfgang
-
www.scp-paulet-lenerz.com

Re: [ql-users] Isn't it open source?

[Phoebus R. Dokos ( . )]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:58:03 +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

Hi Wolfgang,
Snipped the whole previous message
As answering to individual points makes a little difficult to concentrate 
my whole argument I will write a response with two examples on why the 
current license can in effect hamper developments and why it's extremely 
confusing in itself. I will also add why I believe that Internet 
distributions is imperative in my (very humble) opinion

Example 1.

Case 1. Lets assume that IOSS is modified and drivers from other OSes are 
capable to be ported. Lets also assume that these are linux drivers and by 
default Free Software. Even if possible to integrate a Linux driver to 
SMSQ/E we cannot do so as its license clashes with the SMSQ/E license (as 
you mentioned yourself in Marcel's argument of distribution under two 
separate licenses). That in itself closes the door to systems software 
from other platforms. (Doesn't affect applications software of course)
Case 2. Lets take QLwIP that Peter wrote (and works as we can see from his 
emails). If we want to give SMSQ/E TCP functionality by somehow 
integrating QLwIP into SMSQ/E then we again clash with its license (QLwIP 
is a port of A. Dunkels wIP that is Free Software). It is illegal to do so 
therefore on the regular version of SMSQ/E.

The only way that therefore you could integrate something like that with 
the OS would be in the form of patches, something that was the cause of a 
big brawl in this list when it came to that Software Pirates in our 
midst thread if you recall. Here therefore comes Example 2 (Hypothetical 
situation that may or may not bore resemblence to actual persons and 
events)

Example 2.
Suppose UU (TT +1 ;-)  at one point in time gives permission to Marcel 
Graf and Peter Kilgus to sell a specific version of SDQOS. (SuperDuperQL 
Operating System). Marcel goes and makes a machine called Futura and Peter 
an emulator called SDQE (SuperDuperQLEmulator). They both get no 
permission to modify the source (the OS at that point is proprietary 
software) and they carry on doing so. At one point UU decides to open up 
the sources more or less but makes a license like the SMSQ/E current one. 
Neither Marcel or Peter acquire the sources but want to make their 
creation compatible. Peter patches the emulator to behave differently and 
Marcel creates a patch for the software (again he doesn't base his work on 
the sources and neither does Peter). The result is a compatible SDQOS (at 
least for the user) with the newest changed license version. Are they 
breaking the law or violating the license?  Marcel even goes on and allows 
his agents (C  C systems) to sell the early version of the OS patched 
just as he did before. Doesn't the agency legal principle make his 
agents legal as well (if he was legal in the first place)?

You can see how confusing the status can be just by that.

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
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)
Point 4. Survival of a platform is based on adoption. If you throw a 
really Free SMSQ/E on say Savannah or SourceForge you will get at least 10 
or 20 people to have a look-see. If you win half (sic!) of them you gained 
a potential whole new tree of QL users (and developers).
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.

There are many other reasons but this is the most important I think

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.htmlS

[ql-users] DJC 16

[Derek Stewart]

Hi,

I was going up the M6 in England, last week just North of Stoke to see my
girlfriend, when a red Porsche flew pasted me with the registration number
DJC 16

I wondered where Dilwyn was going in such a rush.

Derek

Re: [ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor

[Marcel Kilgus]

Roy wood wrote:
 There were one or two teething problems when the code changed to
 incorporate the faster memory but there were in the original code
 and just shown up by the new code. (That is right isn't it Marcel?).

If you're referring to the RECHP problem you're right, I suspect the
problem existed since the first versions of QDOS but only with fast
memory came to full effect. 3.03 will finally fix it (like 3.00 fixes
a nasty PE bug that has already bothered me over a decade ago!).

Other programs just had to be slightly adapted to the new memory
situation.

Marcel

[ql-users] QPAC

[Christopher Cave]

For some time now, the JOBS facility under QPAC2 has indicated 
corrupt memory for all jobs. Naturally this has made me a bit 
suspicious of some of my programming but I have now tackled the 
problem and find that the problem persists even when booting 
with the following:

LRESPR 'win1_sys_qpac2' : EXEP 'JOBS'

This is under QPC2 v3.03, SMSQ/E v2.99, QPCA2 v1.38  JOBS 
v1.02.

Any bright ideas? Should I have upgraded QPAC2 sometime?

Christopher Cave

Re: [ql-users] DJC 16

[Phoebus R. Dokos ( . )]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:05:16 +0100, Derek Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi,

I was going up the M6 in England, last week just North of Stoke to see my
girlfriend, when a red Porsche flew pasted me with the registration 
number
DJC 16

I wondered where Dilwyn was going in such a rush.

Derek

No doubt to catch up with Milo from the Tweenies. I hear he's quite the 
party animal :-D

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

Re: [ql-users] QPAC

[Marcel Kilgus]

Christopher Cave wrote:
 This is under QPC2 v3.03, SMSQ/E v2.99, QPCA2 v1.38  JOBS
 v1.02.

 Any bright ideas? Should I have upgraded QPAC2 sometime?

Yes.

Marcel

Re: [ql-users] QPAC

[wlenerz]

On 15 Oct 2003 at 21:53, Christopher Cave wrote:

 
 Any bright ideas? Should I have upgraded QPAC2 sometime?
 
Oh yes, ask your supplier to send you a new version of QPAC2

Wolfgang