[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 at 22:45:55, Roy wood wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Qliberator was another story but Ian Stewart, who was my only contact, had only a small part in writing it. The other author, whose name escapes me, Adrian Soundy had long since disappeared and the sources were not available. I have now no contact for Ian so when the last few copies I have are exhausted I cannot sell it. I have not sold a copy for some time so I am not too worried but I would have liked to get it updated. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] Beginning a succesful QL journey
In a message dated 19/03/2004 02:00:06 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Stephen,Have been lurking here for a while, reading the various threads, alongwith looking at different websites, faqs etc. As a beginner, the QL worldseemed very complicated, with strangely named Trump Cards, Gold Cards, andhundred of programs, expansions and websites uncomfortably squeezing theirnames around the letters "Q" and "L". Anyway, things are a little moreclear now and i'm keen to give the machine itself a try.Ah that sounds great. I'm not often on this list, but since I'm here at the moment, I'll use the opportunity to influence you right from the start :-)What are your opinions on beginning this venture, for someone on quite atight budget but with enthusiasm for computer meddling and unusualhardware. Just how much use would a standard QL be (there seem to be quitea few on EBay at any one time)?I had a quick look into the latest QUANTA and QL Today mags for you, but saw no cheap standard QL at the moment. Sometimes standard QLs are given away for free, especially at QL meetings.It seems to me that a floppy disk interface of some description is a necessity to connect the QL to the outside world (i.e. for downloading files from the net and transferringthem across). But oh, what about the disk format? Didn't think about that.I'd say you need at least a GoldCard - otherwise most of the QL software that is developed nowadays won't be usable for you. The GoldCard already includes a floppy disk interface.Is a Qubbide hard drive interface another must have?Almost. The GoldCard allows to use floppies with 2.88 MB, so if you're extremely patient, you could start without harddisk.One thing you must be aware of, is that you can not use a normal monitor for a standard QL. Either you need enough room for a second monitor (an old-fashioned beast that supports the QL video timings) or you need a QL mainboard replacement (Aurora).More expense but thenwhat's the point in getting involved with the QL if i'm trying to usehardware unrepresentative of the majority of current users. But thenthings start to become quite expensive and I risk spending a lot (for me)of money on something which i'll get little use our of.This is difficult to resolve because a full featured QL hardware might contain even more components than you expect. It is not unusual that one has speeder card, mainboard replacement, keyboard interface, harddisk interface, improved serial interface, mouse interface, backplane. Plus, because all that never fits into the QL case, mechanical aids to mount all the stuff in a different case.That was, by the way, one of the reasons why there's the Q40 ;-)) Which has basically the same video hardware, memory/interrupt structure and processor family as the QL, but most of the old peripherals are modernized/replaced/integrated on one board, and there's a muuuch faster CPU. I hesitate to recommend the Q40 for you, because it's usually not a low budget solution. But in the rare case someone offers you a 2nd hand Q40, it can't be wrong if you compare the price of the Q40 to the sum of all the QL components/interfaces you'd want otherwise.All the bestPeter You can also have a look at my own website: www.rwapsoftware.co.uk/sinclairql2.html for a list of second hand items for sale at low prices, including a Q40 !! We do not have any Gold Cards for sale at the moment, but can supply new ED disk drives when you do find one. I have also been promised a couple of Miracle Systems hard disk drives which plug into the QLs ROM port. Unfotrunately, this does not seem compatible with the latest operating system SMSQ/e (despite both being originally written by Tony Tebby). If you want to use a hard disk (which is preferable) and decide to go for a QuBIDE, then you need to bear in mind, that you will need to build your QL into a PC style case instead. You can also consider one of Tony Firshman's Flash EPROMs (RomDisq - see : http://www.firshman.co.uk/romdisq.htm) However, as Peter says, you need to compare the cost of acquiring a full second hand system with a ready built system, such as the Q40/Q60, or just make do with an emulator running on Windows/Linux/Mac operating systems. The beauty of buying second hand is that you do not have to buy everything together - a standard QL with Trump Card and dual DD disk drives should suffice to get you going. The Trump Card provides a total of 896K memory, disk access and the all important Toolkit II. However, in order to transfer disks to/from the PC, you will need a program called: DiscOver - can you still get this on a QL disk?? However, just what proportion of the QL users still use this type of system is unknown. --Rich Mellor RWAP Services35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JHTEL: 01977 610509Visit our
Re: [ql-users] Re: Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: £ 0.00 to spend! (1st a...
In a message dated 19/03/2004 11:17:31 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Huhu, dada. Kindergarten level reached at last, and Roy pulls out the intellectual waterpistol :-) Since the easiest way to escape that game level is the 'unsubscribe' command, I'll just use it hereafter.I'm well aware that I'm only a small candle in software development, not comparable to the real free software heros like Mark Swift, Jonathan Hudson, Richard Zidlicky and others. Nevertheless I think my offer was necessary, although the chances it would be accepted were small from the start.Those who think I still had free software ambitions left in Post-Tony-Tebby SMSQ/E (and would therefore 'give a present') are as wrong as can be. As far as I'm personally concerned Wolfgang can keep his license forever - I simply don't care anymore.One last remark. I've often been misinterpreted in a way that I'd want _everything_ to become free software. This is not so, although I'd probably never want any money for a piece of QL software that I write myself. Having read between the lines in all this, the status of SMSQ/e and just how "free" it is, appears to be more a battle of wills between the parties concerned. I do not see that this situation will ever be resolved, especially now that various changes/additions to SMSQ/e have already been submitted and incorporated in the code. I wonder if all the people who contributed those changes would now agree to SMSQ/e and their code being made freely distributable under GPL, or would we have to go back several versions so that only Tony Tebby would have to agree to this (if indeed he now changed his mind to allow it)?? The whole situation is a mess and it is only the users who are losing out. If Peter is unwilling to allow the majority of QL users have access to his code, then so be it - we will just have to accept that situation and move on. Most people seem perfectly happy with SMSQ/e and how it is now and the way in which changes are managed and released. Most people are ignorant of why Peter and others want SMSQ/e to be under GPL and also what changes this would actually bring. To tell the truth, I would bet most people simply do not care, so long as SMSQ/e continues to be developed and released for the good of the QL community. Enough of the bickering. If a programmer wants to release his hard work for only a small percentage of the QL community, then so be it. It's just a shame that very few people will ever see the benefits of his work. Peter, if you no longer want to subscribe to this list, then this will only push you further from the QL community and even fewer people will know what great feats you achieve. However, it is your choice. Maybe once the software is released, you will advertise it in Quanta and QL Today so that people will be aware of it, what it does and what is can be used on. However, I doubt many people will use it (alas) as there are so few who use QDOS Classic as their operating system of choice. I wonder why people do not chose QDOS Classic as their main operating system. Could it be: 1) It has not been improved for some years (so far as I know, since it was ported to the Q40) 2) It has no pointer environment, which many people are used to, and which is used by a vast majority of current programs (IS THIS STILL TRUE)?? 3) It is difficult to get running and cannot access the same files on the hard disk as SMSQ/e (if you have a dual boot system). 4) It still contains bugs left over from QDOS, and lacks many of the facilities of SMSQ/e (multitasking BASICs, faster interpreter, SERMouse drivers) I stand to be corrected on these comments on QDOS Classic and I am sure that George Gwilt would love a simple step by step guide as to how to set it up, so that we can find out why QWord cannot open its TurboPTR windows under it. --Rich Mellor RWAP Services35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JHTEL: 01977 610509Visit our website at URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.ukStuck with ordinary dial up internet connection ?? Read our review of internet accelerators and broadband at:URL: http://www.rwapadventures.com/Services/reviews.html
Re: [ql-users] Beginning a succesful QL journey
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 at 06:16:31, wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) In a message dated 19/03/2004 02:00:06 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: snip I have also been promised a couple of Miracle Systems hard disk drives which plug into the QLs ROM port. Unfotrunately, this does not seem compatible with the latest operating system SMSQ/e (despite both being originally written by Tony Tebby). If you want to use a hard disk (which is preferable) and decide to go for a QuBIDE, then you need to bear in mind, that you will need to build your QL into a PC style case instead. You can also consider one of Tony Firshman's Flash EPROMs (RomDisq - see : http://www.firshman.co.uk/romdisq.htm ) _not_ eproms - flash rom chips. RomDisq needs a QL with memory expansion. However a basic QL system is _not_ recommended as there is very little you can do with it. A Trump Card (768k extra memory/disk interface/toolkit II) is probably the bottom end option. I have always preferred the hardware solutions, but I am biased (8-)# However, as Peter says, you need to compare the cost of acquiring a full second hand system with a ready built system, such as the Q40/Q60, or just make do with an emulator running on Windows/Linux/Mac operating systems. The beauty of buying second hand is that you do not have to buy everything together - a standard QL with Trump Card and dual DD disk drives should suffice to get you going. The Trump Card provides a total of 896K memory, disk access and the all important Toolkit II. However, in order to transfer disks to/from the PC, you will need a program called: DiscOver - can you still get this on a QL disk?? ... or a QL emulator on the PC. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] £ 0.00 to spend! (1s t attempt)
In a message dated 18/03/04 16:57:35 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 18 Mar 2004 at 9:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You might try driving without tyres. But would that be driving? Wolfgang Bumpily - as without SMSQ/E. George
Re: [ql-users] Re: Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: £ 0.00 to spend! (1st ...
In a message dated 19/03/04 11:35:27 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I stand to be corrected on these comments on QDOS Classic and I am sure that George Gwilt would love a simple step by step guide as to how to set it up, so that we can find out why QWord cannot open its TurboPTR windows under it. It would have to be a very simple guide since with my inability to understand instructions (sometimes including my own!) it would be a stumble by trip journey instead of step by step. George
Re: [ql-users] £ 0.00 to spend! (1s t attempt)
On 19 Mar 2004 at 9:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bumpily - as without SMSQ/E. On the other hand SMSQ/E does seem to give the, er, bumps to some... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Re: Changing the subject
In a message dated 19/03/2004 15:48:38 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It ties in a bit with Geoff's comment about a 1000 pounds work contract.Contray to Peter, I will always consider trying to sell my programs, or at least some of them (I hasten to add that this has nothing to do with SMSQ/E, which is not mine).For me, it is a question of commitment: if people buy my (or, indeed anybody else's software) for the QL, they still show commitment to the QL. They show that they care enough about the machine to put some of their money in it. If the software is totally free, this is no longer true.It is also a question of trying to subsidise the few traders we still have and without whom, I firmly believe, there would be no more QL community, period.(Although, I don't know how much giving them a program to sell isn't a poisend pill since, at least sometimes, it seems to cost more to produce/upgrade etc, than the money they get from the sales).So, if I have a program that I think could be sold , I'll always try to sell it. Any profit I make from it is reinvested in things QL Agreed - the QL traders continue to support the QL mainly from a love for the system and the people involved. The more disputes that arise and the less people that buy any software, the less the incentive for us to carry on with the QL (most QL traders already make an annual loss). I know that RWAP Software for one has hardly had ANY software sales in the past year and if it wasn't for the bit of income from second hand equipment which we sell on behalf of Quanta mainly, then we would have folded long ago and never had the funds or inclination to produce QWord. Public Domain and free software is all very well and good, but without the traders to provide it, provide advertising revenue for QL Today and Quanta and generally to promote the QL, there would be no community left. The main problem with free software is that there is no ongoing support or promotion - how many people that read QL Today and Quanta have no internet access to check on developments and new releases of software, or even to access public domain software. Dilwyn keeps his public domain service alive, but it is unlikely to generate enough income to pay him to advertise it. (Dilwyn, I wonder how many public domain disks you have sold in the last 6 months). If SMSQ/e were to become truly free software, surely the traders could not charge to sell it. In which case, who would promote it in QL Today / Quanta and pay for the advertising / deal with customer complaints, feedback and assistance in using it. I doubt anyone would do this - If you think this would not be the case Peter, then when are you going to start advertising QDOS Classic and providing contact details for people to know where to get upgrades andget help in installing the system / reporting bugs or problems?? --Rich Mellor RWAP Services35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JHTEL: 01977 610509Visit our website at URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.ukStuck with ordinary dial up internet connection ?? Read our review of internet accelerators and broadband at:URL: http://www.rwapadventures.com/Services/reviews.html
Re: [ql-users] Re: Changing the subject
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 at 11:13:18, wrote: This was Rich with bad attribute--^ (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Agreed - the QL traders continue to support the QL mainly from a love for the system and the people involved. The more disputes that arise and the less people that buy any software, the less the incentive for us to carry on with the QL (most QL traders already make an annual loss). Who? I think none do now, if you account for time. Working for myself means time is money. Any time I spend on QL work means I earn less money. I make no profit even if I ignore my time, but I am a hardware man (8-(# What _is_ the problem of money? It seems no problem if it goes out, but only if it comes in. Money is only a token for favours. Maybe we ought to resort to old fashioned sheep. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] Re: Changing the subject
On 19 Mar 2004 at 16:54, Tony Firshman wrote: Maybe we ought to resort to old fashioned sheep. No thanks, I already look sheepish enough most of the time. Wolfgang
[ql-users] Re: Re: [ql-users] Re: Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: £ 0.00 to spend! (1st a...
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes SNIP The whole situation is a mess and it is only the users who are losing out. No, that is not the case. The users have gained by having a stable system that is being developed in a coherent manner. Peter could be part if that if he chooses and he could become a reseller - he had the offer - and then sell it at cost so making it, if effect, free. If Peter is unwilling to allow the majority of QL users have access to his code, then so be it - we will just have to accept that situation and move on. Most people seem perfectly happy with SMSQ/e and how it is now and the way in which changes are managed and released. This is, in fact, what most of them have told me. Most people are ignorant of why Peter and others want SMSQ/e to be under GPL and also what changes this would actually bring. To tell the truth, I would bet most people simply do not care, so long as SMSQ/e continues to be developed and released for the good of the QL community. Enough of the bickering. I agree. I just wanted to point out that, after months of peace on the subject Peter pops up and dangles a mythical carrot and starts everyone off again. If a programmer wants to release his hard work for only a small percentage of the QL community, then so be it. It's just a shame that very few people will ever see the benefits of his work. True. And no reason at all why he should not give it away free as a module which can be bolted on to SMSQ/E. Did I say no reason? -- Roy Wood Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex. Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501 web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Re: Changing the subject
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wolfgang Lenerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes SNIP (Although, I don't know how much giving them a program to sell isn't a poisend pill since, at least sometimes, it seems to cost more to produce/upgrade etc, than the money they get from the sales). Very true in some cases especially in the amount of time taken up in supporting people who only use the manual when the phone is out of order but we do it and will continue to do it because it is usually fun and the appreciation we get is outweighed by the pain. There are times, however. -- Roy Wood Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex. Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501 web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
[ql-users] GPL or not GPL, that is the question
Peter Graf a écrit: Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: The software Peter is producing seems too important (...) Not if it isn't made available. Which is only true if my offer is rejected. I therefore conclude that keeping SMSQ/E from from the GPL has a much higher priority (for Wolfgang Co.) than the new technical features I'd contribute otherwise. No problem for me personally - it saves me a lot of work. I'll see if the Q60 will be blessed with Minerva, it could be a nice basis for QLwIP. I do not understand both subjects. 1) What is the advantage of GPL when the source code is available? As I see it the current licence is only a security for TT: if an unknown organisation did make money with SMSQ/E, there would be an argument to get something for him. IMHO he deserves it. Please Peter, is there a way to achieve the same result with this GPL stuff??? OTH apparently Linus does make a lot on money with his free stuff, so maybe I am wrong here? 2) If Peter does his developments under GPL, then there is no way to prevent someone else to use them further. So his work is obliged to be made available. Or this subject becomes even darker to me.
Re: [ql-users] Re: Changing the subject
Wolfgang Lenerz a écrit: Contray to Peter, I will always consider trying to sell my programs, or at least some of them (I hasten to add that this has nothing to do with SMSQ/E, which is not mine). For me, it is a question of commitment: if people buy my (or, indeed anybody else's software) for the QL, they still show commitment to the QL. They show that they care enough about the machine to put some of their money in it. If the software is totally free, this is no longer true. I agree with that opinion. Arnould
RE: [ql-users] Beginning a succesful QL journey
Peter Graf wrote: I hesitate to recommend the Q40 for you, because it's usually not a low budget solution. But in the rare case someone offers you a 2nd hand Q40, it can't be wrong if you compare the price of the Q40 to the sum of all the QL components/interfaces you'd want otherwise. I have a Q40 system fully functional that I could let go at at bargain price : I have a Q60 system now. If you are interested contact me off list. Duncan Neithercut -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of s m gadd Sent: 18 March 2004 22:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ql-users] Beginning a succesful QL journey Hi all.. Have been lurking here for a while, reading the various threads, along with looking at different websites, faqs etc. As a beginner, the QL world seemed very complicated, with strangely named Trump Cards, Gold Cards, and hundred of programs, expansions and websites uncomfortably squeezing their names around the letters Q and L. Anyway, things are a little more clear now and i'm keen to give the machine itself a try. What are your opinions on beginning this venture, for someone on quite a tight budget but with enthusiasm for computer meddling and unusual hardware. Just how much use would a standard QL be (there seem to be quite a few on EBay at any one time)? It seems to me that a floppy disk interface of some description is a necessity to connect the QL to the outside world (i.e. for downloading files from the net and transferring them across). But oh, what about the disk format? Didn't think about that. Is a Qubbide hard drive interface another must have? More expense but then what's the point in getting involved with the QL if i'm trying to use hardware unrepresentative of the majority of current users. But then things start to become quite expensive and I risk spending a lot (for me) of money on something which i'll get little use our of. Anyway, not sure if that made much sense, just some musings and interested to hear your views. Many thanks, Stephen
Re: [ql-users] Re: Changing the subject
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 at 18:49:44, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) On 19 Mar 2004 at 16:54, Tony Firshman wrote: Maybe we ought to resort to old fashioned sheep. No thanks, I already look sheepish enough most of the time. I thought you were more wolf like (8-)# -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: Re: Re: [ql-users] £ 0.00 to spend! (1s t attempt)
I used one at uni ( Reading 1977-80) - We had a network of sorts An ICL mainframe over at one side of the campus in the Computer Science Block , and a Modular One (or some similar name) over the other side in the Cybernetics Dept - with a nature reserve and a lake between them. So, the connection was via phone line and 300 baud accoustic coupler - The telephone handset was placed into a foam padded box which contained speaker and microphone and was connected to the computer - it worked very well, and was not at all sensitive to noise. This made us cyberneticists feel very superior. While the computer science people had to submit their jobs on punched cards, we could use the teletypes and even tectronix green graphics terminals in our dept and use the M1 as a front-end computer to work interactively on the ICL mainframe. Back then home computing was a bit pricy. A Commodore Pet with a black and white display capable of 40X20 graphics, and 4K Ram cost several thousand pounds. The along came Uncle Clive, and the rest is history (more or less back on track). Jeremy Taffel - Original Message - From: Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 6:21 PM Subject: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: Re: Re: [ql-users] £ 0.00 to spend! (1s t attempt) Mind you the 300bps acoustic coupler modem is a bit limiting (8-)# It was Z88 like, but with a great keyboard, but poor screen. Acoustic coupler? Is that a modem that plays the sound through the telephone handset rather than plug into the phone line? I remember reading about that kind of thing many, many years ago, but never used one and didn't really believe they would work anyway...surely a TV on in the background or something would make it not work? (Back to my flat earth books...) -- Dilwyn Jones
Re: [ql-users] GPL or not GPL, that is the question
In a message dated 19/03/2004 19:41:39 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As I see it the current licence is only a security for TT: if an unknown organisation did make money with SMSQ/E, there would be an argument to get something for him. IMHO he deserves it. Please Peter, is there a way to achieve the same result with this GPL stuff???OTH apparently Linus does make a lot on money with his free stuff, so maybe I am wrong here?2) If Peter does his developments under GPL, then there is no way to prevent someone else to use them further. So his work is obliged to be made available. Or this subject becomes even darker to me. Agreed, but the problem is that if someone converted Peter's work to run under SMSQ/e and it does involve changes to the operating system. Why? Because the GPL says that any future changes must also be released under the GPL licence terms (or so I understand). --Rich Mellor RWAP Services35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JHTEL: 01977 610509Visit our website at URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.ukStuck with ordinary dial up internet connection ?? Read our review of internet accelerators and broadband at:URL: http://www.rwapadventures.com/Services/reviews.html
Re: [ql-users] Re: Changing the subject
In a message dated 19/03/2004 16:57:40 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This was Rich with bad attribute--^ Maybe... Or maybe I am just echoing the feelings of other traders and QL users who long ago abandoned the scene (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED])Agreed - the QL traders continue to support the QL mainly from a lovefor the system and the people involved. The more disputes that ariseand the less people that buy any software, the less the incentive forus to carry on with the QL (most QL traders already make an annualloss).Who? I think none do now, if you account for time.Working for myself means time is money. Any time I spend on QL workmeans I earn less money.I make no profit even if I ignore my time, but I am a hardware man (8-(#What _is_ the problem of money? It seems no problem if it goes out, butonly if it comes in. Money is only a token for favours.Maybe we ought to resort to old fashioned sheep. Hey - I'm willing to accept anything as payment - though preferably only sheep that have been slaughtered and carved up so I do not need a new freezer... --Rich Mellor RWAP Services35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JHTEL: 01977 610509Visit our website at URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.ukStuck with ordinary dial up internet connection ?? Read our review of internet accelerators and broadband at:URL: http://www.rwapadventures.com/Services/reviews.html
Re: [ql-users] GPL or not GPL, that is the question
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed, but the problem is that if someone converted Peter's work to run under SMSQ/e and it does involve changes to the operating system. Why? Because the GPL says that any future changes must also be released under the GPL licence terms (or so I understand). Which touches on the biggest problem for the GPL and SMSQ/E. Under the current arrangement there is a single publisher, who can enforce some modicum of quality assurance and consistency/compatibility. Under a GPL license, anyone can be a publisher and there is no way to force compatibility for different versions, or prevent code forks that would ultimately be disruptive in an already small community. I was pro-GPL earlier, but now I see the license in operation, I can see what it is trying to protect. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Re: Re: [ql-users] Re: Re: [ql-users] Re: [q l-users] Re: £ 0...
In a message dated 19/03/2004 18:33:26 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writesSNIPThe whole situation is a mess and it is only the users who are losing out.No, that is not the case. The users have gained by having a stable system that is being developed in a coherent manner. Peter could be part if that if he chooses and he could become a reseller - he had the offer - and then sell it at cost so making it, if effect, free. Here here - by saying that the whole situation is a mess, I meant the arguing over the licence, not the way in which SMSQ/e is being developed, which seems as good a method as any to me. We could have a proper debate on the licence for SMSQ/e and a poll to see whether TT should be approached to release it under GPL, but: 1) Would the users be bothered to reply or would they even understand? 2) Would it have any effect on TT?? 3) Has anyone other than Peter ever offered to make any other updates ONLY once SMSQ/e is under the GPL licence? If Peter is unwilling to allow the majority of QL users have access to hiscode, then so be it - we will just have to accept that situation and moveon. Most people seem perfectly happy with SMSQ/e and how it is nowand the way in which changes are managed and released.This is, in fact, what most of them have told me. Fair enough - that is what I understood too Most peopleare ignorant of why Peter and others want SMSQ/e to be under GPL andalso what changes this would actually bring. To tell the truth, I would betmost people simply do not care, so long as SMSQ/e continues to bedeveloped and released for the good of the QL community.Enough of the bickering.I agree. I just wanted to point out that, after months of peace on the subject Peter pops up and dangles a mythical carrot and starts everyone off again. Well, it never was a subject that was going to die away... Look how long it took for the arguments between Windows and MAC OS to die down (despite most MAC users using a Windows emulator well before they decided to adopt Windows altogether)... If a programmer wants to release his hard work for only a small percentageof the QL community, then so be it. It's just a shame that very few peoplewill ever see the benefits of his work.True. And no reason at all why he should not give it away free as a module which can be bolted on to SMSQ/E. Did I say no reason? Yes, no reason --Rich Mellor RWAP Services35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JHTEL: 01977 610509Visit our website at URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.ukStuck with ordinary dial up internet connection ?? Read our review of internet accelerators and broadband at:URL: http://www.rwapadventures.com/Services/reviews.html
Re: [ql-users] GPL or not GPL, that is the question
In a message dated 19/03/2004 23:16:57 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Agreed, but the problem is that if someone converted Peter's work to run under SMSQ/e and it does involve changes to the operating system. Why? Because the GPL says that any future changes must also be released under the GPL licence terms (or so I understand).Which touches on the biggest problem for the GPL and SMSQ/E. Under thecurrent arrangement there is a single publisher, who can enforce somemodicum of quality assurance and consistency/compatibility. Under a GPLlicense, anyone can be a publisher and there is no way to forcecompatibility for different versions, or prevent code forks that wouldultimately be disruptive in an already small community.I was pro-GPL earlier, but now I see the license in operation, I can seewhat it is trying to protect. Here here I wonder what the pro-GPL camp's reaction would be if the licence had been implemented earlier (before the colour drivers release) and someone had said that they would only develop a QPC or Aurora version of the colour drivers and save themselves the hard work to implement it on the Q40/Q60 (plus the cost of having that hardware too) --Rich Mellor RWAP Services35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JHTEL: 01977 610509Visit our website at URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.ukStuck with ordinary dial up internet connection ?? Read our review of internet accelerators and broadband at:URL: http://www.rwapadventures.com/Services/reviews.html
Re: [ql-users] Re: Changing the subject
On 19 Mar 2004 at 16:47, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: Contray to Peter, I will always consider trying to sell my programs, or at least some of them (I hasten to add that this has nothing to do with SMSQ/E, which is not mine). I understand the point of commitment by paying for the software. My viewpoint is that I like Freeware so much, that I would feel like a hipocite if any of the software/documetation/whatever I produced for the QL was sold. I produce what I do because I want to and make it available because I feel commited to community contribution. I feel commited when I contribute to the QL community. I'm not trying to nullify our viewpoing Wolfgang, just showing that some of us have differing viewpoints. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] Re: Changing the subject
On 19 Mar 2004 at 16:47, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: Contray to Peter, I will always consider trying to sell my programs, or at least some of them (I hasten to add that this has nothing to do with SMSQ/E, which is not mine). I understand the point of commitment by paying for the software. My viewpoint is that I like Freeware so much, that I would feel like a hipocite if any of the software/documetation/whatever I produced for the QL was sold. I produce what I do because I want to and make it available because I feel commited to community contribution. I feel commited when I contribute to the QL community. I'm not trying to nullify our viewpoing Wolfgang, just showing that some of us have differing viewpoints. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] Re: Changing the subject
On 19 Mar 2004 at 21:41, Tony Firshman wrote: No thanks, I already look sheepish enough most of the time. I thought you were more wolf like (8-)# but in sheeps' clothes, of course... Wolfgang QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
