Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
In a message dated 09/11/02 18:43:17 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sounds great, tell me when you are going to market the program as I will certainly buy a copy from you. Or if you like I can Beta test it on the Q60, QPC, Atari-QL etc ... as I have all the set of SMSQ/E favours. Must what is called supporting the software writers, pity it is not retrospective. Derek You will actually be purchasing the copies from me, as I am co-writing this software with Phoebus (and Geoff Wicks). We hope for a release at the start of December ... -- Rich Mellor RWAP Software 35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JH TEL: 01977 610509 http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
There is a reason I don't like this scheme (even though I wouldn't totally oppose it, and that's support. Suppose a customer has problems with SMSQ/E on the Q40 (heaven forbid). Tne he would contact you and you would have him contact Jochen etc... Don't think this will happen. I'm not sure that this would really be a good thing... Neither am I. I am mainly concerned about the costs and the work. And the whole discussion about pre-paid licenses etc. fits in quite well there - it is time-wasting. Let everybody be responsible for the payment himself, provided we find a good and cheap method of payment. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Phoebus Dokos wrote: ??? 9/11/2002 11:30:47 ??, ?/? Jochen Merz [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: Snip of banking details I understand... and in any case you are a lot more qualified to answer this :-) Yes, and this qualification has cost me a lot of money :-( (My experience is only between Greece and the US and US and UK -ask Bill Waugh ;-) - for bank transfer and with PayPal for more than one countries...) However and after what you said, it seems that the best solution is to send Euros in cash :-) It is in many cases (see other mail). For paying small amounts like 10 or 20 EUR, cash is by far the cheapest (provided, it arrives). Banks always had excuses, money conversion, different banking systems etc. I can understand that there are some problems between different continents with different currencies and bank numbering systems etc. I don't really want to criticise that some things may cost the money they asked for. But you had choices in the past, which you don't have anymore. They got rid of Eurocheques. That was, in my opinion, a very good, cheap and reliable payment method, for both private and business people. Of course, cheap and reliable, that had to be removed. Now the EUR has come and money transfers within the EUR zone are still expensive - well, banks blame it on the numbering systems again. OF COURSE! They ONLY had 10 to 20 years to know the EUR was eventually coming, and ONLY 5 years to KNOW it WILL come - and even now THAT they have introduced the IBAN (international banking number) there is no bank I'm aware of which offers you forms where you can type in the IBAN. And the costs have not gone down either. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi again, With regard to the payment thing I think that we each should bear responsibility for our own sales. I'd rather prefer this too. This helps avoid mistunderstandings right from the start. That said I think that an SMSQ/E Citibank account would be a good idea. We could all pay in, email the remittance advice to Wolfgang and let him pass it on to Tony. Credit Card collection is not expensive in terms of the percentage taken but all Merchant Services now insist on a terminal which you have to rent. This would be more than the account would generate given that I have, as predicted, sold one copy of SMSQ/E since the new licence fee came into place. I believe that Jochen's sales, apart from QPC2 are similar, and DD would seem to have sold very few too. Good idea. They are present in most countries in Europe, Belgium, France, Greece, Spain, Italy, Jersey, Switzerland, Luxemburg etc. ... and twice in the UK: Great Britain, Citibank IPB/PBG and England, Citibank Intl. PLC (any idea where the difference is), and, of course, the US. For Europe, the money transfer should be INSTANT (i.e. you press the button on the Citibank terminal or enter the TAN in your browser) and the money is IN the other account, I was told. I have checked my online banking, all European branches are available. And it is free of charge here. To my knowledge the only bank which offers worldwide services (well, they claim they are the largest worldwide working bank), and so far I was able to take money from my account free of charge when I was in the US, UK etc., I was able to manage my account on their touchscreen terminals etc. The only other banking network which was (*WAS*) reasonably cheap was the post, but that's history. Most of the contracts between the countries are cancelled, you can't get money in other countries as easily and cheap as you could 3 or 4 years ago, and the fees are ridiculously high! A cheque from a Belgium or French Postbank cannot be handled or cleared by any bank in Germany (no contracts anymore) except for the Deutsche Postbank, and they charge EUR 15,-!! Sending money around (throughout Europe is bad, worldwide is VERY bad) is either unreliable, or reliable but unaffordable (Western Union), or both. For 10 or 20 EUR, I suggest you send cash. As soon as banks get involved, it gets expensive most of the time. The only positive execption seems to be Citibank (Germany), but the account and transfer costs seem to differ from country to country. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hopefully soon - a directive is on the way under which transfers within the EUR zone may not be more expensive that those within a country in that zone. Come to think of it, perhaps national transfer rates are going up, then :-(( A directive already exists about cash machines in the EUR zone. The result: banks ignore it or raise the price within the country. Several banks made up for the loss of currency changes already last year by more than doubling the charges for cash machines... AND got rid of Eurocheques - so they make sure they get you, 'cause once you're abroad, you can only use the cash machines. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 10 Nov 2002, at 0:28, Roy Wood wrote: (...) Wolfgang is the person who could incorporate the 'patch' into the distribution not DD. Yes, then it wouldn't be a patch anymore, of course. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 9 Nov 2002, at 19:31, Roy Wood wrote: You could be saying there has to be a version of SMSQ/E specially for the Q60. If so you must discuss this with Wolfgang. If there was a differnce between the Q60 platform and other platforms (e.g. the Q40), that could warrant another version. It wouldn't be too much work, but I would, of course, have to be made aware of it. (rest cut) Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 9 Nov 2002, at 19:44, Roy Wood wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Derek Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I am comming to the London Show with a Q60, I hiope things can be sensible. For my part, as I told Derek privately, my emails may seem a trifle 'spirited' but there is no personal malice involved. All I want is that we get it right. So, perhaps, we can get something rolling. I'd just like to let the list in general now that DD and I are speaking an trying to get everything done OK! With regard to the payment thing I think that we each should bear responsibility for our own sales. That said I think that an SMSQ/E Citibank account would be a good idea. We could all pay in, email the remittance advice to Wolfgang and let him pass it on to Tony. Ok, I would have no trouble with that. (poor sales) no surprise there - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Tony Firshman wrote: On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 at 14:45:21, dndsystems1 wrote: (ref: 00a501c287fe$d1851d00$4f6887d9@asusone) I know from what you have said that you have used [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a redundant address that I use for reading this list, nothing else. If anything other than this list tries to come in it is Dennis: This list is probably your best advertising that you have in the QL community, but the way you have handled it may have have produced lost customers. You should use your sales address when you send replies to the list. Your email program should allow separate sending and receive addresses. If it doesn't switch to Netscape, or another that does. This would allow list users to reply to you privately on the header address, off the list, without being filtered out. Lafe
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: Under penalty of being qualified by Dexter as a TT groupie, I must say that, if there were defects in the OS and he was made aware of them, he did fix them. Ummm, no, you're not a groupie! If anything, I am more of a groupie than you are. I used to know who TT was when I was a teenager - how he came to be in that position... I was a Clive groupie and TT was like his backing singer ;) Gee, now I made myself sound really weird! Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Tony Firshman wrote: I am no expert, but people in the know say that the 'from' address is the major cause of spam. The 'reply to' is not often used, so Lafe's suggestion is OK. This is only true in Usenet for the simple reason that the from address is already contained in the overview of a group whereas one has to download all actual articles in order to get the reply-to addresses. BTW: I still haven't had a single spam to my list address. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 8 Nov 2002, at 21:10, Tony Firshman wrote: Not often enough (8-)# Hmm I wuld have thought Never mind. :-))) Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: Dave P [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jochen Merz wrote: maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. Thanks for the clarification. As a member of the public, Wolfgang's approach aside, I can now see how he arrived there (just wish he gave us a chance to get up to speed too instead of throwing us in at the deep end! ;P) So, DD are theiving scum. If you bought one, contact Wolfgang directly and offer to pay the license fee. Seems fair. Dave Yes I want that, the customer/end user pays direct so I don't have to bother about it, great. We already do this with Jochen Merz software. In our adverts you will have seen pre-installed commercial software. We install Qpac2 etc. on Q60s at the customers request but we do not pay for it, they pay Jochen direct, it works fine. Why can't the licence fee be the same, Jochen is the reseller, ok sell away and we just do the labour intensive bit, as usual. On 2(?) occasions the customer wanted us to pay Jochen for them because they did not want to phone Germany or no credit card, so we have paid Jochen directly on their behalf. He has our credit card number so I just email him saying: 1 software pack to Name, Address he takes cash from our credit card and thats it. He then posts the manuals etc. on to the customer as per normal, job done. Can we not do the same for licence fees, the customer pays him direct and we will put the O/S on for nothing (we already put the O/S on for nothing, see other email). Why doesn't that work? Better still, the customer gives DD the money to pass on to Jochen, and he just takes it from our credit card. That's what I want to happen and it frees up more time for me to work on what I should be doing. How's that? Seems fair. Dennis - DD Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: Dave P [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the presumption is that DD have sold Q60s with SMSQ/E - after all, this is the way the machine has always been sold. If only they had simply told me - we have not sold one single machine with SMSQ/E. How do you know that they weren't sitting on a stock of 25 pre-blown EPROMS and have been nibbling away at these with sales, and would have made appropriate arrangements when this got down to 2 or 3 EPROMS? This is pure conjecture. Again, only DD can clarify this. I thought it was obvious, we blew a pile of ERROMs last year and put them in stock as you would do with floppy discs maybe. When we want a pair we pick them up and fit them. We do everything in batches and never use the one at a time approach. This applies to motherboards as well, I build a generic m/b which is stored and can be turned into a Q40i, Q60/60, Q60/66, Q60/80 or the other one which is secret. Thanks fo the technically As I said previously, I hold your technical skills in highest regard. Excuse me, but what cooperation? DD and I don't HAVE TO cooperate (even though, still, I'd like to - let me go on record for this!). That also depends on the buyers of SMSQ/E. I for one, would not have bought a Q60 under these circumstances. If you do, knowing that you are using a pirated copy of an OS and that the people gining it to you had not right to do so, then that's your decision. This license creates so many grey areas. For example, I have a QXL card, but no OS, yet one was originally supplied with it. Do I have to buy another copy of SMSQ? If I buy QPC do I have to pay for yet another full copy of SMSQ or can I just pay the extra 10 Euros for each additional version? [1] Bopttom line, maybe DD are trying to get something for nothing. I hope not, but the suspicion remains and I'll veto my Q60 purchase (which is some way off anyway) until this issue is resolved and license fees are shown to have been paid. No it's the other way round when I look at the paperwork - see other email - we are actually not charging for it and we do pay licence fees (Peter has paid them for us for convenience) and we have a few fees outstanding nothing much, exactly how many, don't know. That's somewhere in the paperwork on my left and I want to do the soldering on my right. The soldering wins. The total is nothing to make a fuss about. Apparently we cannot pay the few outstanding fees because we have to be resellers to hand the money over. The way it works, I think, is if I were to hand a few pounds Sterling to Wolfgang now, he would have to give it me back because I am not a reseller. So one of us must become a reseller to hand him the few pounds and then he can keep it. I do not know how it works (Peter has asked Wolfgang twice for me with no responce) but I think the above payment mechanism might be correct. I just want to make Q60s and bung them (Wolfy?) a few quid every now and again, that will do me but it has to be more complex. Dennis - DD Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: Malcolm Cadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? In article 01d701c286ae$2bf4f320$91f4193e@asusone, dndsystems1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:08 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? I know from what you have said that you have used [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a redundant address that I use for reading this list, nothing else. If anything other than this list tries to come in it is deleted as spam automatically. If I use another computer to read the list nothing gets deleted and I can see all. This is when I caught Dilwyn Jones, Tony Tebby, Alex Wells and maybe one or two others using the wrong address. I always try to reply using my correct (different) address hoping they will catch on. Dennis, Looking at the header of your above reply on the list it is clear that the address being used is - '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' ... see below for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 22:30:00 + Message-ID: 01d701c286ae$2bf4f320$91f4193e@asusone From: dndsystems1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: 3DCA1F6D.32579.51B739@localhost Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:46:25 - So this is where the confusion over your email address lays. If you are saying that you have a 'filter' applied - that rejects any email to this address ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) other than that from '[EMAIL PROTECTED] - then you should make that VERY CLEAR to everyone who replies to you. By the above rules - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - as a sender address would be rejected by your filter. You have now made it clear, below, that - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - is your preferred address for contact. This was obviously not clear to other people before. If anyone wants to contact DD Systems the front door is [EMAIL PROTECTED] as in all advertising for over a year. Postal, fax phone are all included. Look on the web www.q40.de. Where is the hard to contact bit? Nobody has been given the Supanet address above to use. It was used 2 years ago for a different purpose, it has never been public. My Email to Tony Tebby was on 08.10.02 18:44 ? Now what? Dennis - DD Systems -- Malcolm Cadman It gets much worse than that, Malcolm, I was away and Derek told me what was happening, I phoned him and said Tell Wolfgang to send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I'll sort it later when I get back. Yesterday Derek told me Actually I didn't send [EMAIL PROTECTED] I sent 1 (or 2?) of your private addresses. Oh my God! I have been phoning my wife to drag the sales email in and look for Wolfgang, she reports back to me No can't see it my reply Ok well check again in a few days when you can. She replies, Right oh Captain, your every wish is my command (actually I think I may have dreamt the last bit!). I thought That Wolfy is making my life a misery, the £$%^ *()^%, wait until I see him. I have called Wolfgang a fool on this list for using the wrong address while I was waiting for his incomming. :-))) Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. How wrong can things go? Wolfgang, the above mess is DDs fault. Please accept my apology on behalf of DD. I will not call you a fool again but can I still call you WolfGanster - sorry just kidding. Tony Firshman was right from the word go. There was something fundamentally wrong in what we were doing. I just wasn't here all the time to fix things that I did not know were wrong. Tony, the next time you give me advice wave your finger at me so I listen more. Malcom, its a bit of a mess really, what do think. Funny now though. Dennis - DD Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 at 21:06:28, Dave P wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jochen Merz wrote: maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. Thanks for the clarification. As a member of the public, Wolfgang's approach aside, I can now see how he arrived there (just wish he gave us a chance to get up to speed too instead of throwing us in at the deep end! ;P) So, DD are theiving scum. If you bought one, contact Wolfgang directly and offer to pay the license fee. Seems fair. The money is not the issue really. The main point of the license is to ensure there is only one approved version in the field. DD, according to their adverts, are selling a patched version. This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. You're not still on about that are you, I can't belive it. Look at it like this there are 2 versions of 2.98, the first was flawed, the second was fixed. The second version makes the Q60 behave like other platforms _adding_ to uniformity across platforms. The first version makes the Q60 behave like nothing else because it is wrong. As you well know there has been more than 1 version of SMSQ/E with the same version number on a number of occasions. You will have seen new versions created at workshops for some reason but the version number was not incremented, these were probably bug fixes. You have supplied different versions of SMSQ/E with the same v. number to customers. I know this from the QL subgroup we used to run, I had the same version of SMSQ/E on my Aurora from Jochen yet when I installed your supplied SMSQ/E on another Aurora owned by one of the group it would not work correctly, not until 2? months had passed and you sent him a repaired/altered/patched version which I installed and hey presto it worked. All the same version number. This has always happened in our group. I took my master SMSQ/E disk to Jochen years ago with a problem after a recent update and he said Yes there is a fix, took the disk overwrote it and gave it me back. I asked Is that a new version then? he said No, it has the same version number. I asked How many different versions of the same number are there. He smiled and replied Two. It has always been this way. It is perfectly acceptable, this is what happens when something is under development. Look at it another way. I travel hundreds of miles to see Jochen at a workshop - in the above example - he says Yes, there is a fix and waves a disc at me. But, he says You cannot have it, you must wait for a couple of months because that is when the next version will be compiled and released. I say You're £$%$%^* joking, I'm standing in front of you, a fully paid up owner of SMSQ/E and you've got what I need now but your asking me to wait 2 months, $%^£)( hell fire. I've travelled a long way for this could I not sway your opinion? Hope you enjoyed that. The point is in the above situation it is bad customer practice, too rigid and generally not nice, although officially correct. SMSQ/E was patched all over the place to get it working the Aurora then eventually well sorted versions would appear, no great fuss. It's just progress during development. We (DD) are the ones that have never done this sort of thing (altered SMSQ/E). When we started we received v2.98 SMSQ/E and have never used another version. Absolutely consistant all the way though. TT knows of the version we fist used and guess what, it is still the same. Jochen accepted the licence fees for it, what have DD done wrong with this original code? We state that we supply v2.98 'patched' to give it an ID. We didn't produce the code, we were given v2.98 'patched' to use when building Q40i/Q60, it is still the one we offer now the chips were blown last year, they are not new. I think I've covered everything concerning 'patched'. That's it. Dennis - DD Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi Dennis, Why doesn't that work? Better still, the customer gives DD the money to pass on to Jochen, and he just takes it from our credit card. That's what I want to happen and it frees up more time for me to work on what I should be doing. How's that? Seems fair. Yes, that's fine if I sell my own products. The difference is: on my own products which I sell to you, I still have some profit after subtracting the costs, card charges etc.although the bundle price is cheaper. On the 10 EUR - it will be a big loss for me - Tony mentioned it in his email. First of all, I get no share from the 10 EUR at all, so it eats up another bit of my time. Worse, I would have to charge you VAT, but pay out 10 EUR to Tony VAT-free (we both have VAT-IDs). This will make me lose 16%. Plus the costs and charges for credit card transactions would be on me too ... so even without counting my time, over 20% bang! gone! I will need to write an invoice, mail it - and that all costs money. I'm not saying I am generally not willing to collect royalty fees, but I can't afford to lose money by doing so. Maybe something else which we should discuss with Wolfgang. I believe transferring money from the UK (Roy, soon DD?), the US (MUCH more expensive for a future reseller coming up soon?) :-) etc. will cost a fortune, and as I am paying money to Tony on a quartely base anyway AND accept card payment (which still is the cheapest international method of payment), I'm sure we can figure out something together. ... so we have to wait for Wolfgangs reply - maybe he can come up with a suggestion. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 at 13:53:10, dndsystems1 wrote: (ref: 00a401c287fe$d067c620$4f6887d9@asusone) - Original Message - From: Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 at 21:06:28, Dave P wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jochen Merz wrote: maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. Thanks for the clarification. As a member of the public, Wolfgang's approach aside, I can now see how he arrived there (just wish he gave us a chance to get up to speed too instead of throwing us in at the deep end! ;P) So, DD are theiving scum. If you bought one, contact Wolfgang directly and offer to pay the license fee. Seems fair. The money is not the issue really. The main point of the license is to ensure there is only one approved version in the field. DD, according to their adverts, are selling a patched version. This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. You're not still on about that are you, I can't belive it. Look at it like this there are 2 versions of 2.98, the first was flawed, the second was fixed. The second version makes the Q60 behave like other platforms _adding_ to uniformity across platforms. The first version makes the Q60 behave like nothing else because it is wrong. What I should have said was _unlicensed_ patched versions, sorry. that would have avoided the loads I have snipped. As Wolfgang has said, there will obviously be changes on individual releases. What the license is trying to do, as far as I see, to make sure that patches do not break program code. As Roy pointed out, even Tony Tebby's patches used to do that. -- 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] Software pirates in our midst?
1. Direct bank transfer doesn't cost ALL that much if done correctly... ie. There are services that charge a nominal fee of about 10 Eur for ANY amount you transfer. In that effect, you can wait until a sum is collected and then send it as a whole. ... that highly depends on the originating country. Ask Roy what sort of trouble he had and what fees he was facing when he tried to send money to me. As I am involved in lots of international payment matters (due to my shareware business) I know all the problems there. It is a nightmare. And as soon as it is between countries of which one is not part of the EURO area, correspondence banks happily take various amounts from the sum to be transferred, so sometimes a lot less money arrives than was originally sent. In addition, if you sell three SMSQ/E in a quarter, then 10 EUR out of 30 is A LOT! 2. Bank accounts (most notably AmEX and Citi accounts) that are open in the US offer free deposits/withdrawals form any place in the world. This also depends. Citibank: Free withdrawel - yes, but it is not possible to pay into your account once you're outside the country in which your account is located. Also, Citibank is fine for Germany, USA etc. - but have you ever tried to find a Citibank in France? This effectively means that a joint account could be set up under Wolfgang's supervision (main holder) in which all parties could hold a ATM card. This way, they can deposit anywhere in the world without fees and this be available immediately. I use the same method to get and send money to my family in Greece through the Commercial bank of Greece and CitiBank... Sending money between Citibank accounts is a different matter again - it varies from free up to a certain percentage, and is dependent on the account type and country. And - I won't go into detail here - the French banking system and law is totally different from that in the US, UK or Germany. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 9/11/2002 11:30:47 ??, ?/? Jochen Merz [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: Snip of banking details I understand... and in any case you are a lot more qualified to answer this :-) (My experience is only between Greece and the US and US and UK -ask Bill Waugh ;-) - for bank transfer and with PayPal for more than one countries...) However and after what you said, it seems that the best solution is to send Euros in cash :-) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi, I am comming to the London Show with a Q60, I hiope things can be sensible. I just wish I could receive 90-100 emails about program development on SMSQ/E, as there is really a lag in the quality development. It is all very well having a good operating system, but where are the upto date applications. It is looking like some people only like to talk about doom and gloom, well that is what the Microsoft Windows project was all about. Derek
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 9/11/2002 1:42:33 ??, ?/? Derek Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: Hi, I am comming to the London Show with a Q60, I hiope things can be sensible. I just wish I could receive 90-100 emails about program development on SMSQ/E, as there is really a lag in the quality development. Well here's one ... Q-Word will support the following features on the Qx0: 1. Digital Sound 2. High Colour Graphics 3. Multi-colour Bitmap Founts :-) How's that? Do you want a screenshot too? Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 13:15:30 -0500 Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ??? 9/11/2002 1:42:33 ??, ?/? Derek Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: Hi, I am comming to the London Show with a Q60, I hiope things can be sensible. I just wish I could receive 90-100 emails about program development on SMSQ/E, as there is really a lag in the quality development. Well here's one ... Q-Word will support the following features on the Qx0: 1. Digital Sound 2. High Colour Graphics 3. Multi-colour Bitmap Founts :-) How's that? Do you want a screenshot too? Phoebus Hi Phoebus, Sounds great, tell me when you are going to market the program as I will certainly buy a copy from you. Or if you like I can Beta test it on the Q60, QPC, Atari-QL etc ... as I have all the set of SMSQ/E favours. Must what is called supporting the software writers, pity it is not retrospective. Derek
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 9 Nov 2002, at 14:45, dndsystems1 wrote: I have called Wolfgang a fool on this list for using the wrong address while I was waiting for his incomming. :-))) Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. How wrong can things go? Wolfgang, the above mess is DDs fault. Please accept my apology on behalf of DD. I will not call you a fool again but can I still call you WolfGanster - sorry just kidding. Dennis, I've sent you a long private email in reply to the private one you sent me - I told you there, there is no need to apologize in public. Sorry apparently it came too late. Perhaps you can tell me whether you got my private email ? Can we work something out from that? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 9/11/2002 2:44:20 ??, ?/? Derek Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 13:15:30 -0500 Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ??? 9/11/2002 1:42:33 ??, ?/? Derek Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: Hi, I am comming to the London Show with a Q60, I hiope things can be sensible. I just wish I could receive 90-100 emails about program development on SMSQ/E, as there is really a lag in the quality development. Well here's one ... Q-Word will support the following features on the Qx0: 1. Digital Sound 2. High Colour Graphics 3. Multi-colour Bitmap Founts :-) How's that? Do you want a screenshot too? Phoebus Hi Phoebus, Sounds great, tell me when you are going to market the program as I will certainly buy a copy from you. The program will be released by RWAP (Rich is the driving force behind its development with valuable input by Geoff Wicks... I am just doing the graphics and sound ;-) Hopefully it will be out on time for Santa Qlaus to pick it up and deliver it ;-) Or if you like I can Beta test it on the Q60, QPC, Atari-QL etc ... as I have all the set of SMSQ/E favours. Thanks very much for the offer, however all inquiries regarding beta test etc. should be addressed to Rich. I do have here a QXL II (soon with GD2), Aurora (hopefully with fixed SGC) and Q40 (in a couple of days) and QPC. The Q60 should be a plus though... The graphics aspect would be greatly helped on Qx0 and QPC due to the specialised FPU routines as well... so there's something to think about :-) The program has planned support for Thor XVI (Thanks to Simon Goodwin) and Amiga QDOS (thanks to Simon Goodwin... this guy is EVERYWHERE) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Derek Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I am comming to the London Show with a Q60, I hiope things can be sensible. For my part, as I told Derek privately, my emails may seem a trifle 'spirited' but there is no personal malice involved. All I want is that we get it right. With regard to the payment thing I think that we each should bear responsibility for our own sales. That said I think that an SMSQ/E Citibank account would be a good idea. We could all pay in, email the remittance advice to Wolfgang and let him pass it on to Tony. Credit Card collection is not expensive in terms of the percentage taken but all Merchant Services now insist on a terminal which you have to rent. This would be more than the account would generate given that I have, as predicted, sold one copy of SMSQ/E since the new licence fee came into place. I believe that Jochen's sales, apart from QPC2 are similar, and DD would seem to have sold very few too. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi Roy, Rowing again On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 19:31:37 + Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message 00a401c287fe$d067c620$4f6887d9@asusone, dndsystems1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes DD, according to their adverts, are selling a patched version. This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. You're not still on about that are you, I can't belive it. Look at it like this there are 2 versions of 2.98, the first was flawed, the second was fixed. The second version makes the Q60 behave like other platforms _adding_ to uniformity across platforms. The first version makes the Q60 behave like nothing else because it is wrong. You seem to deliberately want to misunderstand the concepts here. Your 'patched version' made my Q40 crash. It was, therefore, not fully correct either. Had you taken the trouble to become resellers and had you wanted to you could have submitted the patched code to Wolfgang and had it tested and incorporated into the system. You did none of these things and you made no attempt to find out why it crashed my Q 40 at Hove. 'It works on the machine I am selling so that is all I need to know' is not good enough if you are to lay any claim to be part of the system. If I remember correctly, you asked me for a copy to try on your Q40, when you came back, and said that it did not work, I said, when get a Q60 it is better than the Q40. As you see we were there to sell the Q60. There have been many occasions where users have reported things to me that crashed on their system and worked on mine but I always made the effort to try to find out why. This is called support. If you patch a version of SMSQ/E and distribute it will get out to other systems because we are all in communication (mostly) and other people will try it out on other machines and then..chaos. OK, I do understand the word support, it is a pity no one supported me. I have never patched any version of SMSQ/E, as if this is required, then the software writer has not done his job correctly, in producing a bug free piece of software. You could be saying there has to be a version of SMSQ/E specially for the Q60. If so you must discuss this with Wolfgang. This is inprogress I can not really see any way of exploiting a the native machines potential. This is a real sticking here and probably why there are no good applications programs for the SMSQ/E system now. OK, one is comming and I will buy it. No version of SMSQ/E for any platform other than QPC2 was created for release at a workshop. TT would never be left alone long enough to do it. There have been tweaks done at workshops but these were not distributed to the general public. OK, seems like a first, or is that a Bob Weeks/Nasta FORST The situation with the early Aurora was indeed chaotic I agree and I want to avoid a repetition of it. It is possible, therefore, that you ads mislead us when you said 'it has been corrected' Yes I agree, also add in Q40 SMSQ/E v2.92 to v2.98 which did not work correctly on the Q40 you sold me. I used the Q40 for BBS and until the details of the patch appeared in Quanta Volume 18 Issue 7 August 2001, the system did not work correctly. Phil Borman's BBS used to not send the mail to my BBS with the Pbox mailer due to the bug introduced, which the patch or bug fix correctly. If Mr Tebby had done job right then the code would not be patched. But since I could not get an eprom version it stayed on the shelf and the BBS moved back the Supergold card and it is now on QPC. Can we get on with programming the systems. Get all this interenet access sorted, I do not want to use Linux or Windows. Derek
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Derek Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi Roy, Rowing again No not really. If I remember correctly, you asked me for a copy to try on your Q40, when you came back, and said that it did not work, I said, when get a Q60 it is better than the Q40. As you see we were there to sell the Q60. But that is just not good enough. There have been many occasions where users have reported things to me that crashed on their system and worked on mine but I always made the effort to try to find out why. This is called support. If you patch a version of SMSQ/E and distribute it will get out to other systems because we are all in communication (mostly) and other people will try it out on other machines and then..chaos. OK, I do understand the word support, it is a pity no one supported me. I have never patched any version of SMSQ/E, as if this is required, then the software writer has not done his job correctly, in producing a bug free piece of software. But this is the whole problem that Tony and I struggled with on the Q40. Things would work on one machine and then not on another. As far as we could see they were identical but what then was the problem ? Peter Graf said that all his designs and machines were perfect and needed no changes (well he implied that by the amount of effort he put into trying to solve the problems and the amount attention he paid to us). You cannot say to the thirty or so people who bought the Q40 that they must buy a new machine if they want it to work. I spent a lot of time testing versions of SMSQ/E from TT and trying to get the bugs fixed. This is the responsibility of the reseller. This is what we charge a bit extra for. DD now have the Qxx mantle and you have to have some responsibility with it. SNIP Yes I agree, also add in Q40 SMSQ/E v2.92 to v2.98 which did not work correctly on the Q40 you sold me. I used the Q40 for BBS and until the details of the patch appeared in Quanta Volume 18 Issue 7 August 2001, the system did not work correctly. Phil Borman's BBS used to not send the mail to my BBS with the Pbox mailer due to the bug introduced, which the patch or bug fix correctly. If Mr Tebby had done job right then the code would not be patched. Patches are for the user to apply and not the person who does the selling. Patches change the code and are, therefore, an infringement of the copyright and the licence. I have supplied a couple of copies of SMSQ/E with added modules but they were always on separate media to the original software which was distributed as supplied. I have also refused updates which I feel are not stable or do not work on my systems. I would not distribute v2.99 of SMSQ/E for the Gold Card without supplying v2.91 which was, in my opinion, the last one to handle the DD drives correctly If there is a bug you have to try get it fixed. That is why we are conduit between the end user and the programmer. I admit with TT effectively out of the running recently this is a problem but Wolfgang is the person who could incorporate the 'patch' into the distribution not DD. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
TO WHOM? WHEN? (no reply here...) Peter paid Jochen, so? Well, Peter bought a few licenses beginning of February, after that only manuals WITHOUT license! Wolfgang did not know about this - that's why he tried to find out with you what is going on. And in my opinion that was the correct way - to ask YOU, because you are selling it. You could have told him easily what was the case, you could have told Tony how many you have sold, and it would be so easy to see if that matches up with the number of licenses bought by Peter. However, I was wondering about the situation several months ago - I did pose a question in the newsgroup Q60s were sold, manuals were sold, but none of you have become a reseller. No reply to this question at all, only to other bits of this mail. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
I have lost a complete evenings work messing about with is silly email stuff instead of working. A bit of a dent in the production schedule, never mind its all for a good cause, or is it? Makes you wonder sometimes. If I get to bed before 1:00am it won't be too bad, better than the 4 hours I got yesterday. Dennis - DD Systems One positive thing from this lengthy email debate is that although it gives the impression of internal strife and the possibility of people refusing to talk to each other, it rarely if ever comes to that on the QL scene. Some cross words are sometimes exchanged, rattles get thrown out of prams (can't remember who said that first!) but ultimately we air some views in public and after a while back to normal. That's healthy, there's nothing worse than bottling things up! Although I've stayed on the sidelines of the recent smsq/e debates, I've enjoyed reading most of it. -- Dilwyn Jones
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
I was debating purchasing QPC but unfortunately I'm now a Mac user and the PC with the ISA slot is failing through old age. I am seriously debating the possibility of looking at uQLx and the possibility of getting the QXL running under linux/BSD. This won't help me directly because the Mac has no ISA slot, but I will be able to enjoy it if I can find a replacement mobo that has one on pricewatch.com. Actually, just found the perfect machine for it in my store room! Never mind! Dave, don't forget there is a QL emulator for the Mac machines (QemuLator). I think AL Boehm over there has experience of using it, if you'd like some info. Not absolutely sure but I think that uQLx and QemuLator were both written from the same sources, but can't remember which came first. -- Dilwyn Jones
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
BTW speaking of parties, which was that UK party? .. the one with the totally crazy name and the crazier members?? The Monster Raving Loony Party. Used to be led by Screaming Lord Sutch, until his untimely death (suicide by hanging). It is now led by his cat. Their website: http://www.omrlp.com/ Funnily enough, some of the policies they've put forward in the past have since become law... Maybe the lunatics really are running the asylum... Maybe this is what the quote attributed to Her Majesty this week was about...there are strange forces at work in this country... or something like that ;-) -- Dilwyn Jones
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 8/11/2002 3:38:30 ??, ?/? Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: Monster Raving Loony Party - Screaming Lord Such? He often got more votes than 'legitimate' parties. He is dead now, but Roy, as an ex pop star, should take over his role (8-)# Yes that's the one :-) You did me a great service Tony... I just woke up from a 2 hour sleep because I was trying to remember the name of it and couldn't :-) (Ever had that bugging feeling in your mind?) Now I an go back to sleep... Night! Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 at 05:58:42, Phoebus Dokos wrote: (ref: UTICWR05TN091TWSHCLK2U06RMC7DBQO.3dcb98e2@quantumcentral) ??? 8/11/2002 3:38:30 ??, ?/? Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: Monster Raving Loony Party - Screaming Lord Such? He often got more votes than 'legitimate' parties. He is dead now, but Roy, as an ex pop star, should take over his role (8-)# Yes that's the one :-) You did me a great service Tony... I just woke up from a 2 hour sleep because I was trying to remember the name of it and couldn't :-) (Ever had that bugging feeling in your mind?) All the time. The best course is to stop thinking, and it pops up. Now I an go back to sleep... -- 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] Software pirates in our midst?
On 8 Nov 2002, at 12:18, Mike MacNamara wrote: Hi Wolfgang That's what I feared, if I need any further support on any of my existing copies, or indeed updates or fixes. I will have to buy a new license and lose the old ones. Umm, sorry where did that come from? All we were talking about is what happens if you buy a new copy of SMSQ/E... For support, contact whoever you bought your copy from. I have no doubt that the remaining QL dealers will give you support if you bought SMSQ/E from them Asto updates, I have yet to hear of a Ql dealer who refused to give you free upgrades (provided they were free) Glad to note that the Wolfgang vs DD skirmish, was mostly down to a lack of communication. Ok, let's call it that, then. And despite Michael Bergers protests this list has been the catalyst in resolving the matter before it had gone to far. yes - hopefully. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 8 Nov 2002, at 11:47, Tony Firshman wrote: (...) The best course is to stop thinking, How do you do that? Does it happen often to you?... grin Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:46:36 + Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message 023001c286b2$90e7b480$91f4193e@asusone, dndsystems1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Roy Wood - read this. From Peter reguarding never ending story from you about illeagl versions. It was a bug in the memory manager. TT told me that he was desperately searching but could not find it. We tried to help him and Richard finally located it, and after some tests for reliability I submitted the bugfix to TT at 22.03.2001. At 15.05.2001 TT informed me that he had included the fix into his version. TT did not inform me about a new version number for this fix so I called it 2.98 patched instead of increasing the version number. Beyond that I have never distributed any patches. Is that clear? It is only a fix for a bug with the nickname of 'patched'. I told you about this bug fix face to face at Quanta Hove Feb 2002 and thought no more of it. Well? I was given a patched version at the Hove show which would not work on my Q 40. I was told 'buy a new Q60' - a verbatim quote. Not helpful to me and not helpful to the people who bought Q 40s from us and had problems. I suspect there were other changes in main chips on the Q40 after we sold them but that would be paranoia wouldn't it ? Whatever the point, this was still a change and therefore still illegal. It was never submitted to Wolfgang as source code. Not in the official release and therefore against the licence. You may say that TT said he had included it in his release but it was not in v 2.99 so he obviously didn't. As an official SMSQ/E reseller I was never passed this code as a new release. You actually had no rights to release it. Squirm how you want. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk Well Roy, since I am the person you are quoting, why not quote all of what I said, which was - Buy a Q60 it is faster than a Q40 But I guess you will not remember this. Derek
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Thanks Roy Wolfgang My concerns are answered Regards Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? Hi Roy Nice to hear from you, just one little point here which I don't think I missed. If DD use SMSQ/E which you refer to in you other email, that was sold with Q40, and abide by that license, nobody would object. Yes They can use it but they cannot sell it or revise it. Once the old licence was finished it was closed and the new one took over. . I was concerned by a remark by Wolfgang to the effect that if a copy of SMSQ/E was lost, like bread, a new copy had to be paid for. OK(maybe), but as the old license stood you upgraded, replaced, etc. We lost 2 complete systems to lightning last month, luckily we managed to recover most things from other machines, but if a 3rd machine had been on at the time that would not have been possible. Now, because of the new license I assume we would have to repurchase SMSQ/E (OK). Which license would it be under, old or new?? No you not have to replace the SMSQ/E because you have the code on the disk which you bought. Even if you lost the disk or destroyed the disk, as others have done, you would still be able to get a replacement from me because I had proof of purchase in the form of your invoice. I would only charge cost shipping it to you. The licence would be irrelevant because I would be replacing the old copy. You stoutly deny revising SMSQ/E, I was talking about David Gillhams revision of the code, you were the seller. .Just putting record straight. nothing to do with money. SMSQ/E is a modular system David Gilham's code did not change any of Tony Tebby's it added a module in a way described by TT himself. That module added in support for soft resets in superHermes. I also added the superHermes keyboard code. I did this for you because you did not want to do it yourself. The code for adding modules to SMSQ/E has been around for a while and is freely available. DD expressly state in their adverts that they have 'changed' the code. (See the last issue of Quanta). This is a different matter. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 at 18:28:49, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: (ref: 3DCC0261.6167.2100FElocalhost) On 8 Nov 2002, at 11:47, Tony Firshman wrote: (...) The best course is to stop thinking, How do you do that? Does it happen often to you?... grin Not often enough (8-)# -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tonysurname.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] Software pirates in our midst?
In article 022801c28715$08112700$cc075cc3@blackpc, Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I was debating purchasing QPC but unfortunately I'm now a Mac user Dave, don't forget there is a QL emulator for the Mac machines (QemuLator). I think AL Boehm over there has experience of using it, if you'd like some info. Not absolutely sure but I think that uQLx and QemuLator were both written from the same sources, but can't remember which came first. Ken Brickwood of the London Group has got Qemulator working well on his iMAC portable. He uses it regularly at our meetings. It is more tricky to set up on a MAC than QPC is on a PC ... yet nevertheless it is very capable. Anyone interested can ask Ken to demonstrate it at the London Show on Sunday 10th November 2002. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
In article 9A4TMJMOnvy9EwK$@firshman.demon.co.uk, Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 20:52:36, Malcolm Cadman wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tarquin Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch and the Grafs had split, so could not. In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,use QDOS Classic, my message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms keep shooting themselves in the foot? P.S. I am bringing 4 new keyboard membranes for sale. DD have not notified there presence with the Q60. ... but after I sent the emailshot out they provided some in put for it, so they may well come. I hope so - the air needs clearing and text here is not the way. Derek - of DD - has just indicated this Friday that he may come along with a Q60. I have encouraged that, as it is much more satisfactory to talk. So let's hope he can make it. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: On 8 Nov 2002, at 11:47, Tony Firshman wrote: (...) The best course is to stop thinking, How do you do that? Does it happen often to you?... grin Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com I get brain farts all the time, was WORSE when I was in the thick of work AND Sinclair computing, had 5 different system types at work that I had to be proficient in and at home there was the 3 different Sinclair setups with different interfaces adding to the mix. The work phrase we has was Taking a Phase a bad enough Phase and you did a total wipe and rebuilt a minimum configuration from scratch. Minor Phases were like Stop, re-group and then think about it, then the got it Yet results meant that the brain just might be back on track, but not guaranteed to be so. Sometimes it hurt to even think about it. -- Paul Holmgren Hoosier Corps #33, L-6 2 57 300-C's in Indy
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Derek Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Well Roy, since I am the person you are quoting, why not quote all of what I said, which was - Buy a Q60 it is faster than a Q40 But I guess you will not remember this. Oh I remember it well but I also replied that was not the point (can't quote the reply). The real point is why does it work on your systems and not on mine. Denying there was a fundamental difference between the two was exactly what Peter Graf did. When I pointed out to him that there were things wrong with the system as it stood he got upset and the accusations began - and the co-operation ceased. I don't care how fast it is. That makes no sense. I do care that the system works for as many users as possible and that was what I was trying to establish. That is also why I remain in full support of a license which tries to make this possible, -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Roy Wood wrote: SNIP I don't care how fast it is. That makes no sense. I do care that the system works for as many users as possible and that was what I was trying to establish. That is also why I remain in full support of a license which tries to make this possible, -- Roy Wood This Should Be The CREED of Anyone developing Hardware OR Software. In the end, This Should have the largest effect on The Success or Failure of our future with this Technology. (Excepting Microsoft of course) about all their license grants you is the privilege to Spend Spend and Spend some more on their stuff. Even if they never get it right! -- Paul Holmgren Hoosier Corps #33, L-6 2 57 300-C's in Indy
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 02:01:09, Jeremy Taffel wrote: (ref: 007e01c28601$8a88b6e0$afba0050taff3) One thing that puzzles me; Dennis states that Wolfgang used the wrong address so he never received it. However the wrong address seems to be the one that Derek uses to contact this list. I keep making the same mistake too - because of the two Ds (8-)# It was Dennis who said this. I've never come across a send only email address before. Reading between the lines, I think Dennis must have problems getting at this received mail. However the bottom line is that _Derek_ got all the mail (packaged into one) by Wolfgang. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tonysurname.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] Software pirates in our midst?
Doesn't everyone ? :o) - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Tony Firshman [mailto:tony;firshman.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? I object to being linked to the UK Tory party (8-)# This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Wolfgang I understand where you are coming from, and I am not taking sides, but with tongue in cheek. Don't you think this can get out of hand? See below Regards Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: Wolfgang Lenerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On 7 Nov 2002, at 11:53, Mike MacNamara wrote: Do you mean that the many copies I have of SMSQ, if I don't agree to be bound a a new imposed license, are illegal. That can't be right, I have bought an item, and must surely be able to continue using it, while still being entitled to expect it is repaired or updated under warranty, ( sale of goods acts) Ooops, again I seem to have been unclear. snip If the Grafs have purchased a license to use SMSQ with Q40/60, then surely they must get SMSQ/E that works with that platform, I get a Q40 quite some time ago - it had a working copy iof the OS in it, that did everything it was advertised as doing. As did I, from Qbranch, but was the code 'debugged' or 'repaired' minor or otherwise?. It must have been if Q40/60 won't operate without it, That makes us both pirates, and poor Roy a criminal as well. if not, then they have been sold something unsuitable for the purpose it was purchased. Sorry to labour the point, not only I, but hundreds of others, have purchased multiple copies of SMSQ/E with various bits and bobs over many years. Don't tell me now that the copies Roy Wood sells of SMSQ Gold which has been altered (not just repaired) is illegal, and that I am a pirate. Roy Wood asked to become a reseller and he is one. No probllem there. Hmmm.. SMSQ.Gold , by a non registered person, was long before a new license, was it 'unofficial' ??? regards Mike Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This also requires them to contribute their changes to other branches of SMSQ too, and to divulge their intellectual property. NO. Read the licence again. quote: When such a proposal is made, the person proposing it may state whether its change/addition/modification is to be : - distributed in the official versions of the source and binary codes, or - distributed in the official versions of the binary codes only, or - not distributed in the official versions, but alongside them. If it is in the binary only, nobody (apart from me) gets to see it. Ummm, that's exactly what I said. Not only source has intellectual property rights. The compiled code does too. If they're forced to include the results of their labors (if any) into every other version, regardless then two things happen: 1. Lowest Common Denominator - SMSQ has to work in the same way on the least capable hardware as the most capable. Consistency and all that. 2. They have to give features to versions that may not be appropriate to run it. This hinders development of SMSQ/E. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Do you mean that the many copies I have of SMSQ, if I don't agree to be bound a a new imposed license, are illegal. That can't be right, I have bought an item, and must surely be able to continue using it, while still being entitled to expect it is repaired or updated under warranty, ( sale of goods acts) You miss the point here, Mike. All software bought before the new licence started is and always will be legal. You can continue to use it as you see fit. All sales post the new licence are covered by it and anyone who supplies a copy of SMSQ/E for any platform has to be an accredited reseller and pay TT his due. But, they are selling new versions now. According to DDs post, the 'repair' was minor, to make the item able to be used for the purpose it was purchased. If the Grafs have purchased a license to use SMSQ with Q40/60, then surely they must get SMSQ/E that works with that platform, if not, then they have been sold something unsuitable for the purpose it was purchased. Again a new, patched or fixed version must originate Wolfgang and him alone. As the controlled of the code he will then pass it to the resellers for distribution. Even to change the SMSQ/E string in the config block would be a violation of the licence. No patch or change is minor and all can have repercussions. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Sorry to labour the point, not only I, but hundreds of others, have purchased multiple copies of SMSQ/E with various bits and bobs over many years. Don't tell me now that the copies Roy Wood sells of SMSQ Gold which has been altered (not just repaired) is illegal, and that I am a pirate. Just to put the record straight here. I have never altered, debugged or otherwise changed any of the software I have sold. For one thing I completely lack the knowledge to be able to do it. Interesting that the Q40 would not work without this change that has now been made. When Tony and I said there were problems with the Q 40 we were called liars. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Ummm, that's exactly what I said. Not only source has intellectual property rights. The compiled code does too. If they're forced to include the results of their labors (if any) into every other version, regardless then two things happen: Funnily enough that evil commercial software developer Marcel Kilgus has put all of his changes to SMSQ/E into the source code that Wolfgang is distributing for free whereas the free spirits of open source have not. 1. Lowest Common Denominator - SMSQ has to work in the same way on the least capable hardware as the most capable. Consistency and all that. Wrong. SMSQ/E can be, and indeed has to be, different on different platforms. It just has to be documented and approved. 2. They have to give features to versions that may not be appropriate to run it. ? This does not make sense to me as a sentence. This hinders development of SMSQ/E. No it makes development a bit slower but stops us from chasing our tails looking for bugs in undocumented revisions. As I have said before on this list I have seen many versions of SMSQ/E which were release candidates where TT changed a small bit of code in one place only to find something going really wrong somewhere else. I was one of the beta testers for all of the versions except the Atari ones because I had all of the machines set up here so I know a lot more about this than you may assume. I was also one of the most vocal (ask Jochen) in reporting little things that were wrong. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
You are quite welcome to a copy of the free version of SMSQ which was supplied with it. I can email it to you if want. SMSQ/E was always a paid version and you can buy that if you want. Thank you for the offer but you didn't supply the QXL and I still have a debt to the person who did. Irrelevant it is free software and always was. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tarquin Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch and the Grafs had split, so could not. In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,use QDOS Classic, my message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms keep shooting themselves in the foot? P.S. I am bringing 4 new keyboard membranes for sale. DD have not notified there presence with the Q60. However, lots to see and people to meet. Plus lots of second user QL equipment, books, and a large Spectrum donation to sort through. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 01:28:45, P Witte wrote: (ref: 012601c285fd$2d6ddcf0$0100a8c0@gamma) The simple and stark message, that incidentally also applies to a certain other beleaguered minority interest group in the painful process of publicly ripping itself apart, must be: Unite or Die ;) I object to being linked to the UK Tory party (8-)# I would have thought a property magnate ( sheds ) with access to the ear of Radio 4 would have been a natural (;-) All the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:08 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On 6 Nov 2002, at 21:23, dndsystems1 wrote: That is the wrong address you fool and you know it. Hmm, it's the address YOU use to post on here. Since it is foolish to use - what? Do you think I have not searched through that address, you have been informed of the correct address to use but you will not use it, why? Even now you have not contacted me on the DD address but you have had me waiting for over a week expecting it to come in, what can I do if you will not send it. Everyone else around the world contacts us but you do not know how to do it. YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR A WEEK? Ha! This is so ridiculous, it had me laughing for a minute. Let's set seom things straight, hmmm? First of all, I don't have to contact you. YOU have to initiate contact - after all, YOU are selling something that doesn't belong to you. Second I contaced you at the email address you used here in this list. Reply : silence. Third, I replied to an email (in JULY!) sent to me privately on a totally other matter by Derek, asking about this. Reply: silence. Fourth, after Tony Firshman made enormous efforts to get to you, Derek finally emailed me, giving me a choice of 2 email addresses. I used the first one he gave me. I sent you (DD) a long email to that address, containing a copy of the one I later sent to the list,and telling you that I intened to put this email on the list. reply : achnowledgement of receipt - then silence. About a week later, I reminded you and asked for your reply. Reply : please use proper channels. Guess what - at that time, I thought that the proper channel was this here list. As you will see in my other email you are using the wrong address. Derek emailed you and told you to send directly to me using the correct address. I have contatced DEREK on the email he GAVE me for correspondence on this matter. You have had a copy of this email for a week on this. If you want to deny this, that's fine by me. Licence money has been paid. TO WHOM? WHEN? (no reply here...) Peter paid Jochen, so? I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. Hmm, that's NOT what Tony said to me. We have sold machines that do not have SMSQ/E - they boot into QDOS Classic instead but then you already know that fact?? On ROM? (no reply here) (...) Of course on ROM If you sell SMSQ/E without a licence you are breaking the law - not me as you are trying to make out. Wolfgang Derek does not deal with this, that is why I asked him to point you to me _after_ Tony Firshman assured me email(s) were coming in my direction but they never did, did they? Why do youask Derek to point me to you - why don't you contact me, Are you trying to say that Derek never mlentioned my emails to you? Whatever is said from now on I am going to offer you an olive branch - do you understand? - you nicely email me with your concerns and I will work through them with you. You must know the correct address by now, just use it. It's the one you have use in this list, of course, isn't it? No, never, do not use it. See other email. Please note that these are not my concerns, but yours. You are breaking tha if you are selling SMSQ/E without any licence. Wolfgang You have a fault, it is between advertising for sales and actually selling something, they are 2 different things. We have not worked on the Q60 very much all summer, in other words we have had a break from the work including sales, now demand is high again we are in production and no you cannot buy one until we start to release them, see, no sales of this production run yet. Dennis - DD Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:08 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On 6 Nov 2002, at 22:26, dndsystems1 wrote: Peter has paid the licences in advance of sales. Sales to the end of the year need to be paid at year end. Peter has asked Wolfgang for the bank account to pay licence fees and although Peter has had replies from Wolfgang on other matters the bank account is still a mystery to Peter and therefore me. I formed the impression that the acount might not have set up yet, I don't know. He has not asked me for that informationsince the licence has become in force! He has Tony's bank account, of ourse and canpay him directly, if he so wishes. He could send tony a cheque (or me). etc Wolfgang But he has asked you, correct. You have not told him, correct. So I do not know, correct. I know from what you have said that you have used [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a redundant address that I use for reading this list, nothing else. If anything other than this list tries to come in it is deleted as spam automatically. If I use another computer to read the list nothing gets deleted and I can see all. This is when I caught Dilwyn Jones, Tony Tebby, Alex Wells and maybe one or two others using the wrong address. I always try to reply using my correct (different) address hoping they will catch on. If anyone wants to contact DD Systems the front door is [EMAIL PROTECTED] as in all advertising for over a year. Postal, fax phone are all included. Look on the web www.q40.de. Where is the hard to contact bit? Nobody has been given the Supanet address above to use. It was used 2 years ago for a different purpose, it has never been public. My Email to Tony Tebby was on 08.10.02 18:44 ? Now what? Dennis - DD Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? Roy Wood - read this. From Peter reguarding never ending story from you about illeagl versions. It was a bug in the memory manager. TT told me that he was desperately searching but could not find it. We tried to help him and Richard finally located it, and after some tests for reliability I submitted the bugfix to TT at 22.03.2001. At 15.05.2001 TT informed me that he had included the fix into his version. TT did not inform me about a new version number for this fix so I called it 2.98 patched instead of increasing the version number. Beyond that I have never distributed any patches. Is that clear? It is only a fix for a bug with the nickname of 'patched'. I told you about this bug fix face to face at Quanta Hove Feb 2002 and thought no more of it. Well? Dennis - DD Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: Dave P [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:54 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: You cannot be serious, man. We have a contracted agreement with Quanta to supply complete working motherboards as a minimum and that includes some kind of O/S, as we have stuck rigidly to the contract conditions the answer is er... no! Quanta have in effect granted us overdraft facilities so we never go into the red at DD and can afford to invest in massive hardware projects like er... oh yes, the Q60. If your CPU is any good? you might be able to sell it to Peter Graf who could supply it to us and we could sell it to you :-) Hehehe :o) Sounds kinda contorted. Does this mean you're not allowed to sell spares? If someone's Q60 breaks and it's outside the warranty period, do they have to buy a whole new Q60? GO WRONG ! you cannot be serious, man! The Q60 is very, very robust and very repairable, no sweat. It is designed so that you cannot lose all of it. If you crushed half of it we could re-use the bits on the other half, good thinking design-wise. Spares: off the shelf but of course dusty. I have lost a complete evenings work messing about with is silly email stuff instead of working. I know how it goes. I have lost about 2 hours of ARM/E development time in the process of spitting fire at the unpolitik of it all! Dave Dennis - DD Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
In message 023001c286b2$90e7b480$91f4193e@asusone, dndsystems1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Roy Wood - read this. From Peter reguarding never ending story from you about illeagl versions. It was a bug in the memory manager. TT told me that he was desperately searching but could not find it. We tried to help him and Richard finally located it, and after some tests for reliability I submitted the bugfix to TT at 22.03.2001. At 15.05.2001 TT informed me that he had included the fix into his version. TT did not inform me about a new version number for this fix so I called it 2.98 patched instead of increasing the version number. Beyond that I have never distributed any patches. Is that clear? It is only a fix for a bug with the nickname of 'patched'. I told you about this bug fix face to face at Quanta Hove Feb 2002 and thought no more of it. Well? I was given a patched version at the Hove show which would not work on my Q 40. I was told 'buy a new Q60' - a verbatim quote. Not helpful to me and not helpful to the people who bought Q 40s from us and had problems. I suspect there were other changes in main chips on the Q40 after we sold them but that would be paranoia wouldn't it ? Whatever the point, this was still a change and therefore still illegal. It was never submitted to Wolfgang as source code. Not in the official release and therefore against the licence. You may say that TT said he had included it in his release but it was not in v 2.99 so he obviously didn't. As an official SMSQ/E reseller I was never passed this code as a new release. You actually had no rights to release it. Squirm how you want. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 22:31:35, Bill Waugh wrote: (ref: 00c601c286ad$6ee41220$b06401d5@famwaugh) - Original Message - From: Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 01:28:45, P Witte wrote: (ref: 012601c285fd$2d6ddcf0$0100a8c0@gamma) The simple and stark message, that incidentally also applies to a certain other beleaguered minority interest group in the painful process of publicly ripping itself apart, must be: Unite or Die ;) I object to being linked to the UK Tory party (8-)# I would have thought a property magnate ( sheds ) with access to the ear of Radio 4 would have been a natural (;-) (8-)# ... and I now have seven sheds. -- 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] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 20:52:36, Malcolm Cadman wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tarquin Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch and the Grafs had split, so could not. In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,use QDOS Classic, my message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms keep shooting themselves in the foot? P.S. I am bringing 4 new keyboard membranes for sale. DD have not notified there presence with the Q60. ... but after I sent the emailshot out they provided some in put for it, so they may well come. I hope so - the air needs clearing and text here is not the way. -- 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] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 7/11/2002 6:37:57 ??, ?/? Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: I would have thought a property magnate ( sheds ) with access to the ear of Radio 4 would have been a natural (;-) (8-)# ... and I now have seven sheds. Hmmm a clear win for PM Blair's policies Maybe they should turn it into party motto... We provide sheds to the shedless (less as in less than 7 ;-P BTW speaking of parties, which was that UK party? .. the one with the totally crazy name and the crazier members?? Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
At 00:19 08/11/2002, you wrote: ??? 7/11/2002 6:37:57 ??, ?/? Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: I would have thought a property magnate ( sheds ) with access to the ear of Radio 4 would have been a natural (;-) (8-)# ... and I now have seven sheds. Hmmm a clear win for PM Blair's policies Maybe they should turn it into party motto... We provide sheds to the shedless (less as in less than 7 ;-P Hmm I have a shed roof in my garden, but someone seems to have nicked the shed. Either that, or the roof is actually someone elses and a previous tenant at this place nicked the roof... BTW speaking of parties, which was that UK party? .. the one with the totally crazy name and the crazier members?? The Monster Raving Loony Party. Used to be led by Screaming Lord Sutch, until his untimely death (suicide by hanging). It is now led by his cat. Their website: http://www.omrlp.com/ Funnily enough, some of the policies they've put forward in the past have since become law... Maybe the lunatics really are running the asylum... -- Cheers, Ade. Be where it's at, B-Racing! http://b-racing.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 23:21, Mike MacNamara wrote: (...). Which license would it be under, old or new?? This would be the new licence. But, anyway, for the end user nothing much has changed, apart from the fact that, if they are technically literate, they can get the sources and tinker with them. Sorry Roy, I'm answering in your stead... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 21:46, dndsystems1 wrote: But he has asked you, correct. Not after the licence came into force correct... You have not told him, correct. So I do not know, correct. You are selling them. correct. You must ask correct. You didn't still correct. etc... This is a redundant address that I use for reading this list, nothing else. If anything other than this list tries to come in it is deleted as spam automatically. If I use another computer to read the list nothing gets deleted and I can see all. This is when I caught Dilwyn Jones, Tony Tebby, Alex Wells and maybe one or two others using the wrong address. I always try to reply using my correct (different) address hoping they will catch on. How nice of you to explain this now And strange how you got all other email but mine... If anyone wants to contact DD Systems the front door is [EMAIL PROTECTED] as in all advertising for over a year. Postal, fax phone are all included. Look on the web www.q40.de. Where is the hard to contact bit? Simple - I used the email you use here. Of course, now you tell us that all other email goes in the bin... Also, don't forget to mention that I emailed Derek directly - he gave me a choice of 2 email addresses one of which I used. Had he told me to use only one, I'd have used that only. Nobody has been given the Supanet address above to use. It was used 2 years ago for a different purpose, it has never been public. It was used on 14th of june 2002 - which is where I got it from and emailed you. My Email to Tony Tebby was on 08.10.02 18:44 ? Now what? I think you have had his reply... Dennis - DD Systems Just to make things clear - is the above email address, i.e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] the one you are asking me to use in reply to my earlier message on this list? Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 3:46, Dave P wrote: And the question is Is Wolfgang able to treat DD fairly in light of his sense that they are seemingly ignoring his perceived authority? This something I cannot let by. There are always two sides to a authority - a moral and and a legal one. One has a moral authority when the situation is such that people want to abide by whatever decision is taken by you. I have no illusions in this respect - some people have gone clearly on record (e.g. Richard Zidlicky) to tell that they do not feel that I have such an authority. I can perfectly live with that. It also means that, in the eyes of these people I certainly don't have a perceived (nice turn of phrase, that) authority. The other is a legal authority, where a situation exists that you cannot do something (legally) without someone's authorization. Taking things out of a shop, for example - you may only do that if the shop owner agrees. It so happens that I am vested with that kind of authority, since TT delegated to me the power to receive requestes from resellers and see to it that official versions of SMSQ/E come from me. Now, as to the question of whether I am able to treat them fairly after they have seemingly ignored my percevied authority. The problem here is that they ignored the licence holder's legal rights. And they ignored my attempts to find you whether they are really ignoring this. Am I still able to treat them fairly? I hope so. I also must go on record to say that I think that I treated them fairly until now. What I can undertake (instead of expressing hopes) is that, if they ask to become a reseller, this will be examined in just the way as I described in many an earlier email. If they become a reseller, they WILL get official versions of SMSQ/E from me. Is that fair enough? Which is what was expected to happen. The license, while I accept it entirely, isn't one that can effectively discourage this. No licence can discourage people not to violate it. Look at M$ - they have about the most strict licences in the world, and still their software is pirated in the millions. What happened here, is that people were actually given a say in the matter, i.e. the drafting of the licence - and then, not satisfied at not having got what they wanted, they decided to boycott everything. This, at least is the way I perceive things. The problem is that Wolfgang expects the DD sales to result in a payment to him of 10 Euros per copy sold, No, not to me, but to TT - I just pass the money over. but he doesn't know how many licenses they already have unsold, so there is no simple resolution without facts. unsold :-))) as to the rest: yes, this is entirely true - BUT the presumption is that DD have sold Q60s with SMSQ/E - after all, this is the way the machine has always been sold. If only they had simply told me - we have not sold one single machine with SMSQ/E. I do think it is vital to have someone keep the different versions of SMSQ/E in step, and I think Wolfgang is technically capable. Thanks fo the technically My worry is that this action has polarised and marginalised DD into a position where they will feel unwilling to co-operate with him. Excuse me, but what cooperation? DD and I don't HAVE TO cooperate (even though, still, I'd like to - let me go on record for this!). If DD sell SMSQ/E as an official reseller, they will get the official versions from me. That's all the cooperation we HAVE to have and that's a cooperation I can guarantee from my side. Of course, I would prefer them telling me what more they expect of SMSQ/E, where they would like to make changes etc... If that doesn't happen, it's NOT because I'm not listening. Now, words will fly, and indignation will be expressed since we're talking about a world market for maybe 100 copies of SMSQ/E over the coming years, it's not going to be sued over, and the enforcer has no teeth. That also depends on the buyers of SMSQ/E. I for one, would not have bought a Q60 under these circumstances. If you do, knowing that you are using a pirated copy of an OS and that the people gining it to you had not right to do so, then that's your decision. So it's academic. THAT we'll see. What's the way forward from here? Good question. Other than suing them, I don't have a ready-made answer. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 20:07, Bill Waugh wrote: (...) There are not enough of us left that we should start an us and them war. It's true that we are a small cmmunity. But surely that doesn't mean that people should be behaving in an improper manner.? Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 16:13, Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote: > 3. I and I believe > others up until now were under the impression that according to our > original "terms of purchase" we were entitled to free upgrades. That hasn't changed, has it? > That > was the idea behind QPC (where the price for an update covered mainly > Marcel's work... the fact that part of this work was done on SMSQ/E to > bring it to up to par with QPC it's totally irrelevant to the OS > itself and very relevant to what Marcel charges). To be fair, though, you could also get free upgrades for SMSQ/E on the Q60. 4. For DD (as both > Dave and Bill said) we cannot really say what really goes on until > either D. or D. (sic!) say their side of their story (as it's only > fair :-). Yes, of course it is. > However did anybody ever consider that this is not a CD > we're talking about here but an EPROM which needs to be burned and > then tested? That doesn't change anything, does it? > Do they have to provide that for free too according to > the SMSQ/E license? Are you suggesteing that they are selling the Q60 with untested software and that the user gets a test version? > My personal opinion is that they shouldn't... it's > not the same thing as copying a CD (which as we said -Dave as well as > me and others when the original license was discussed-) should be > allowed to be copied by PD libraries and even (why not) a very small > fee charged for all their trouble, shipping etc... Just let's clarify the debate and distinguish, as the licence does, between source code and compiled code. For source code, what does the licence say? quote: Any person may distribute the source code to others, provided however that the following conditions are adhered to by the person thus distributing the source : - Such a distribution must be made entirely free of charge - no fees whatsoever, for copying or the media on which the software is copied or otherwise, may be levied. The distribution of the source code must contain a copy of this licence and a clear indication that this licence must be read and agreed upon by the recipient before using the source code. - Such a distribution may only be made in either of two forms: Via a CDROM or via Email. · Via CDROM Exceptionally and only if distribution is made via CDROM, the person distributing the source code may request 3 IRCs and a blank CDROM from the recipient. All of the software, including the documentation and this licence must be distributed on the CDROM. ... unquote. That DOESN'T stop you from sending the source out to anybody, does it? As to binary, or compiled code, that may only be distributed (sold!) through resellers. > That hardly has > ANYTHING to do with the distribution of SMSQ/E and I think that > everyone would agree that the pursuit of a hobby, doesn't mean you > need to blow your money away... OK 10 EUR per new copy is blowing you money away. Then, of course, you will NEVER buy a Q40, because that costs so much more... > (Some people ie. me don't have that > much and the fact that we do love the platform doesn't mean we need to > lose money on it... For example if I ran a PD library service (which I > do in some form) and I provide SMSQ/E I should be able to charge > something for the lost time and effort. Yes, 3 IRCs. > Additionally, having to send > my SMSQ/E version back to the registrar so my buddy that wants to > check it out (even if no intention to incorporate the changes back to > the original version exists) (since no CVS in the usual form exists) > is hindering development than encouraging it. Sorry, let me again quote the licence to you quote As an exception to the prohibition of distribution of binary versions of the software other than through the resellers, you are hereby granted the right to distribute binary versions of the software to a maximum of 10 different persons (whatever the number and moment in time of the changes/additions/modifications you make), provided however that: (a) you have made a change/addition/modification to the software compared to the official version and (b) the person receiving the software from you undertakes to destroy the binary version - after 2 months of receipt thereof, - as soon as you inform such person that the version is no longer a test version but a final version, - as soon as any such change has been submitted to the registrar and accepted by him for inclusion in the official version whatever comes first. The person receiving the binaries from you must also undertake not to distribute binary versions to anybody else except yourself- , even if he/she did make any change/addition/modification to the code. Even if you make several changes/additions/modifications to the software, you may only distribute test versions to the same 10 persons maximum. unquote 5. Finally, the fact > that TT did choose (IIRC again, don't shoot if I am wrong) not to make > any money out of SMSQ/E any more but in that meeting you
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 2:25, P Witte wrote: (...) it appears we may have a rebel camp that is hell-bound on doing what it pleases whatever anyone else may think. Isnt that what its all about? I fear that it is, though, perhaps not even directly from DD. As to the rest of Per's message, I couldn't agree more. Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi Geoff, In fairness to Wolfgang let it be said that this is not a new problem. I have known about it for some weeks, and you can be certain that a lot of activity has gone on in the background to try to resolve the situation. It seems that a certian number of people knew about the problem, while the rest of us didn't. It was therefore quite easy to assume that nothing had been done etc, because Wolfgang didn't mention anyhting in his original email. Some time ago D D approached me about distributing some Just Words! programs with the Q60. I gave a fairly lengthy reply but never heard anything further. This I find unbusinesslike and discourteous. I do believe I read about your feeling on this matter in QL TOADY ! Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this contact or is this above the contact he means? Excuse me for pointing out the flaw in this, but if you were aware that Wolfgang, Tony and Derek agreed to communicate about this issue, you have just admitted there was prior communication and that you (the company) were aware of this issue. Licence money has been paid. I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. This is a private business matter, but for the sake of transparency and defusing the serious allegation, would you care to outline to the group what arrangement you have made? Wolfgang, more like WolfGANGSTER, menacingly demanding money without an invoice. Watch out, this Wolfgangster bloke's a nutter :-))) Dennis, please use this opportunity to take the high ground, not fight to see who can get lowest in the gutter? ;o) That's my job! ;P Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just DON'T assume that I haven't tried to settle this previously in a discreet and diplomatic way. Dude! :o) Ok, so this was a mistep because you got the wrong tone, even if the message was right. There is now public awareness of the ambiguity of DD's license position. Chances are that they ARE ripping off SMSQ/E, but it's still a very strong allegation without some lighter questioning first, even if you had reached a point of going public. The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. MAY ? Do they? I don't know, and nor do you. Only DD can clear up the situation. You may be right, but that is hardly the point. Oh, but it is. The problem is that, right now, I'm NOT concerned with 'The Grafs' as you put it. I have no idea how the Grafs are involved in this. All I see is that dd are selling the Q60, without a licence. My mistake. I think of The Grafs as the originator oif the rather spiffy Q60, which is made by DD. No doubt, the Graffs had an arrangement for SMSQ/E which they may have transferred or sublicensed to DD to make quite lawfully. We do not know. Unfortunately, knowing may be very destructive, as knowing the license fees paid means knowing exactly what DD's sales are, and therefore what production is, and if you knew how few units they may have sold, the scene may become even more disheartened than it already is. It's not the message, it's the voice. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi, maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. Most of you know that, before Wolfgang became registrar, all SMSQ/E related royalties and licenses matters went through me to Tony. That was the fact for ALL SMSQ/E royalties, including the Q40/Q60. The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. MAY ? Do they? There is no secret about the SMSQ/E royalty for the Q40/Q60. The agreement with Tony was, that Peter paid a fixed amount of money to get Tony started (including a personal license for Peter, if I remember correctly ... it's so long ago now) and every additional licesens which was sold by Peter or QBranch had to be purchased through me. Qbranch bought individual licenses directly from me. Peter bought individual licenses directly from me. DD never purchased a license from me. The last license purchase by Peter was early February 2002. Then the whole discussion started. After that, neither Peter nor DD have ordered or paid any license to me. There was no gap - as long as Wolfgang's license was not settled the route to purchase SMSQ/E licenses would have been through me. To make sure that there is nothing I am not aware of, I called Tony a moment ago and asked him - he confirmed that THERE IS NO SPECIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIM AND ANYBODY ELSE AND NO LICENSE MONEY HAS BEEN PAID TO HIM (apart from me and Wolfgang). Jochen
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 at 21:06:28, Dave P wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jochen Merz wrote: maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. Thanks for the clarification. As a member of the public, Wolfgang's approach aside, I can now see how he arrived there (just wish he gave us a chance to get up to speed too instead of throwing us in at the deep end! ;P) So, DD are theiving scum. If you bought one, contact Wolfgang directly and offer to pay the license fee. Seems fair. The money is not the issue really. The main point of the license is to ensure there is only one approved version in the field. DD, according to their adverts, are selling a patched version. This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname.demon.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] Software pirates in our midst?
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 at 08:46:11, Phoebus Dokos wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Wolfgang, I was under the impression that Peter had acquired (ie paid) the rights to resell/modify SMSQ/E... Since DD systems act as his agents under British (and American) Common law (which not only gives them liability but also benefits), they are entitled to distribute SMSQ/E legally. They do not have the right to sell if for any other system but only for the Qx0 of course. All this of course is true provided that Peter DOES carry the right to modify/resell/develop SMSQ/E (which I believe is true). Even it isn't so, I do not believe that DD would want to hijack the software only that there's an honest misunderstanding somewhere I hope :-) Woldgang will have to reply to this. I am pretty sure that, although Peter offered, no money changed hands. (And not taking sides In any case I am ABSOLUTELY certain that I am not violating ANY law as my Q40 is a used one bought originally from Q- Branch... :-) Those were sold prior to the license, and TT was paid royalties via JMS - you are OK (8-)# It is a great pity that Wolfgang felt he had to make this public. I saw what was going on in private, and believe me, we all tried very hard to get a sensible dialogue going. I hope we still can. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname.demon.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] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: Dave P [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this contact or is this above the contact he means? Excuse me for pointing out the flaw in this, but if you were aware that Wolfgang, Tony and Derek agreed to communicate about this issue, you have just admitted there was prior communication and that you (the company) were aware of this issue. I was waiting for an email that never arrived, I am still waiting, I think he is using the wrong address, see other posting. Licence money has been paid. I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. This is a private business matter, but for the sake of transparency and defusing the serious allegation, would you care to outline to the group what arrangement you have made? No not here it must be to Wolfgang in private, as all of this should be. Wolfgang, more like WolfGANGSTER, menacingly demanding money without an invoice. Watch out, this Wolfgangster bloke's a nutter :-))) Dennis, please use this opportunity to take the high ground, not fight to see who can get lowest in the gutter? ;o) That's my job! ;P Dave Tony Firshman kept emailing me telling me of an important email coming in from Wolfgang _and_ that he was having trouble contacting me, so yes I know all that but where is it so I can respond? The whole thing sounds like a wind up or joke. I did laugh when I first read it, difficult not to. I think I know what the problem has been. We will see. Dennis - DD Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On 5 Nov 2002, at 23:20, dndsystems1 wrote: Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this contact or is this above the contact he means? Ahh, at last a reaction. Just for the record, this is a blatant lie. I have contacted YOU on dndsystems1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] in this matter. That is the wrong address you fool and you know it. Do you think I have not searched through that address, you have been informed of the correct address to use but you will not use it, why? Even now you have not contacted me on the DD address but you have had me waiting for over a week expecting it to come in, what can I do if you will not send it. Everyone else around the world contacts us but you do not know how to do it. I have contatced DEREK on the email he GAVE me for correspondence on this matter. You have had a copy of this email for a week on this. If you want to deny this, that's fine by me. Licence money has been paid. TO WHOM? WHEN? I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. Hmm, that's NOT what Tony said to me. We have sold machines that do not have SMSQ/E - they boot into QDOS Classic instead but then you already know that fact?? On ROM? Etc. etc. etc. this is stupid. Has Wolfgang had a tap on the head recently? (a great cure for water on the brain as it happens). Just address this matter, irony I can do without. Do you, Wolfgang, still intend to send this mystery email to me? No. If not why not? Oh, for various reasons. First of all, I don't send out 'mystery emails'. Second, Derek ACKNOWLEDGED to me that he had received my prior email which did contain a copy of the message I intend(ed) to send to this list. If you two aren't speaking to each other, that's NOT my concern. Both of you are acting for DD. Third, it is up to you to request to become a reseller. If you don't,n you are at fault. Despite that, I DID TAKE the initiative to contact you. You know what your reaction was, i.e. none. Wolfgang, more like WolfGANGSTER, menacingly demanding money without an invoice. Watch out, this Wolfgangster bloke's a nutter :-))) Chuckle. If you sell SMSQ/E without a licence you are breaking the law - not me as you are trying to make out. Wolfgang Derek does not deal with this, that is why I asked him to point you to me _after_ Tony Firshman assured me email(s) were coming in my direction but they never did, did they? Whatever is said from now on I am going to offer you an olive branch - do you understand? - you nicely email me with your concerns and I will work through them with you. You must know the correct address by now, just use it. Dennis - DD Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Tony Firshman wrote: The main point of the license is to ensure there is only one approved version in the field. DD, according to their adverts, are selling a patched version. This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. Hmmm, another problem with the license. Until they submit the changes with source to him, he can't make them 'official', so they can't sell them, thereby can't sell the Q60. So basically, Wolfgang has veto power over their ability to sell machines, to some extent. They can't sell them with SMSQ/E until he approves the changes. This also requires them to contribute their changes to other branches of SMSQ too, and to divulge their intellectual property. Can. Of. Worms. *shudders* Glad I'm not stuck in this position. :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: Norman Dunbar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:47 AM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? Morning Dennis, now that you have responded, is there any chance that a meaningful exchange of information can take place beteween yourselves (DD) and Wolfgang to sort out the problem withour further recousrse to name calling and public accusations ? You say no-one has contacted you. Wolfgang et al say differently. You say you have paid TT and Wolfgans says TT says not. Someone somewhere is not communicating ! Please get it all sorted out before we have another flame fest on the list. Cheers, Norman. Good evening Norman, The reply I will post with this should sort Wolfgangs problem out. I get the impression he has always used the wrong address hence 'Black hole syndrome' never mind he can take it all back later on :-) Dennis - DD Systems - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: dndsystems1 [mailto:dndsystems1;supanet.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this contact or is this above the contact he means? Licence money has been paid. I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. REST SNIPPED This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: Jochen Merz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? Hi, maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. Most of you know that, before Wolfgang became registrar, all SMSQ/E related royalties and licenses matters went through me to Tony. That was the fact for ALL SMSQ/E royalties, including the Q40/Q60. The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. MAY ? Do they? There is no secret about the SMSQ/E royalty for the Q40/Q60. The agreement with Tony was, that Peter paid a fixed amount of money to get Tony started (including a personal license for Peter, if I remember correctly ... it's so long ago now) and every additional licesens which was sold by Peter or QBranch had to be purchased through me. Qbranch bought individual licenses directly from me. Peter bought individual licenses directly from me. DD never purchased a license from me. The last license purchase by Peter was early February 2002. Then the whole discussion started. After that, neither Peter nor DD have ordered or paid any license to me. There was no gap - as long as Wolfgang's license was not settled the route to purchase SMSQ/E licenses would have been through me. To make sure that there is nothing I am not aware of, I called Tony a moment ago and asked him - he confirmed that THERE IS NO SPECIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIM AND ANYBODY ELSE AND NO LICENSE MONEY HAS BEEN PAID TO HIM (apart from me and Wolfgang). Jochen Peter has paid the licences in advance of sales. Sales to the end of the year need to be paid at year end. Peter has asked Wolfgang for the bank account to pay licence fees and although Peter has had replies from Wolfgang on other matters the bank account is still a mystery to Peter and therefore me. I formed the impression that the acount might not have set up yet, I don't know. Dennis - DD Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: Thanks for your support Dave, always welcome :-) Well, it's such a polarised debate, I figure I should at least take both sides to be fair ;) Since you're here - what's the chance of a Q60 that comes without a processor, for those of us that have 060's laying around? Dave
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch and the Grafs had split, so could not. In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,use QDOS Classic, my message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms keep shooting themselves in the foot? P.S. I am bringing 4 new keyboard membranes for sale. -- Tarquin Mills ACCUS (Anglia Classic Computer Users Society) http://www.planet14.sonow4u.co.uk/comp/accus/
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
DD, according to their adverts, are selling a patched version. This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. Hmmm, another problem with the license. No because the licence forbids the distribution of unauthorised versions. Simple. Put the worms back in the can. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: Dave P [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: Thanks for your support Dave, always welcome :-) Well, it's such a polarised debate, I figure I should at least take both sides to be fair ;) Since you're here - what's the chance of a Q60 that comes without a processor, for those of us that have 060's laying around? Dave You cannot be serious, man. We have a contracted agreement with Quanta to supply complete working motherboards as a minimum and that includes some kind of O/S, as we have stuck rigidly to the contract conditions the answer is er... no! Quanta have in effect granted us overdraft facilities so we never go into the red at DD and can afford to invest in massive hardware projects like er... oh yes, the Q60. If your CPU is any good? you might be able to sell it to Peter Graf who could supply it to us and we could sell it to you :-) All our motherboard components and expansion cards must come from Peter as this is another contract we do not deviate from. It makes absolute sense, one point of quality control for guaranteed components and a quality build. I have lost a complete evenings work messing about with is silly email stuff instead of working. A bit of a dent in the production schedule, never mind its all for a good cause, or is it? Makes you wonder sometimes. If I get to bed before 1:00am it won't be too bad, better than the 4 hours I got yesterday. Dennis - DD Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
One thing that puzzles me; Dennis states that Wolfgang used the wrong address so he never received it. However the wrong address seems to be the one that Derek uses to contact this list. I've never come across a send only email address before. Wolfgang, with the benefit of hindsight, don't you think it would have been diplomatic to use this list to make the contact with D D instead of starting a war? I'm sure that a carefully worded question posted to him publicly would have ensured you would have got the response you were looking for. regards, Jeremy
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 21:42, dndsystems1 wrote: The reply I will post with this should sort Wolfgangs problem out. I get the impression he has always used the wrong address hence 'Black hole syndrome' never mind he can take it all back later on :-) There seems nothing to take back Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 20:34, Bill Waugh wrote: Can't argue with that, but few things fit easily into a black or white catagory Actually, I was hoping to get some explanation from DD to make this entire thing a bit less black and a bit more grey... what is occuring ( as usual ) is a discussion with many versions of the same story and heaps of hypothetical scenarios, if and buts and maybe's generating more emails than we have user's. :- I'd rather you all spent your time developing the code, you probably agree !!! Yes, but - the way I look at it now is that some people (or at least me) is trying to get a good version of SMSQ/E for every machine, including the Q60 (for example, the fast memory was incorporated into the official version of SMSQ/E) whereas some others just don't play by the rules but still profit from my work... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 21:23, dndsystems1 wrote: That is the wrong address you fool and you know it. Hmm, it's the address YOU use to post on here. Since it is foolish to use - what? Do you think I have not searched through that address, you have been informed of the correct address to use but you will not use it, why? Even now you have not contacted me on the DD address but you have had me waiting for over a week expecting it to come in, what can I do if you will not send it. Everyone else around the world contacts us but you do not know how to do it. YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR A WEEK? Ha! This is so ridiculous, it had me laughing for a minute. Let's set seom things straight, hmmm? First of all, I don't have to contact you. YOU have to initiate contact - after all, YOU are selling something that doesn't belong to you. Second I contaced you at the email address you used here in this list. Reply : silence. Third, I replied to an email (in JULY!) sent to me privately on a totally other matter by Derek, asking about this. Reply: silence. Fourth, after Tony Firshman made enormous efforts to get to you, Derek finally emailed me, giving me a choice of 2 email addresses. I used the first one he gave me. I sent you (DD) a long email to that address, containing a copy of the one I later sent to the list,and telling you that I intened to put this email on the list. reply : achnowledgement of receipt - then silence. About a week later, I reminded you and asked for your reply. Reply : please use proper channels. Guess what - at that time, I thought that the proper channel was this here list. I have contatced DEREK on the email he GAVE me for correspondence on this matter. You have had a copy of this email for a week on this. If you want to deny this, that's fine by me. Licence money has been paid. TO WHOM? WHEN? (no reply here...) I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. Hmm, that's NOT what Tony said to me. We have sold machines that do not have SMSQ/E - they boot into QDOS Classic instead but then you already know that fact?? On ROM? (no reply here) (...) If you sell SMSQ/E without a licence you are breaking the law - not me as you are trying to make out. Wolfgang Derek does not deal with this, that is why I asked him to point you to me _after_ Tony Firshman assured me email(s) were coming in my direction but they never did, did they? Why do youask Derek to point me to you - why don't you contact me, Are you trying to say that Derek never mlentioned my emails to you? Whatever is said from now on I am going to offer you an olive branch - do you understand? - you nicely email me with your concerns and I will work through them with you. You must know the correct address by now, just use it. It's the one you have use in this list, of course, isn't it? Please note that these are not my concerns, but yours. You are breaking tha if you are selling SMSQ/E without any licence. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi all, I just wanted to point out something to the general QL world at large: as you all know, SMSQ/E is being made available publicly, under a licence that was discussed at length here. This licence is now the current licence for all versions of SMSQ/E. Under this licence, only appointed resellers may sell the software, provided, notably, that a 10 euro payment is made to Tony Tebby for each copy sold. Today, DD systems are selling the Q40/Q60. These are machines that contain SMSQ/E in ROM (they cannot boot otherwise). DD have NOT even requested to become a software reseller. They are NOT paying the licence fees. This means that these people are currently selling something for which they have no licence and which they do not have the right to distribute - in other words, counterfeit software. Doesn't this mean that they are software pirates? Even worse, this means that YOU, when you are buying this machine with this software, are also using counterfeit software, and by extension, when using the Q40/Q60, you are also a software pirate. Do you really want to be? Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 5/11/2002 9:24:38 ??, ?/? Marcel Kilgus ql- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: Phoebus Dokos wrote: I was under the impression that Peter had acquired (ie paid) the rights to resell/modify SMSQ/E... No, he didn't. Marcel In that case you can forget what I wrote :-) Although my assumption IS legally correct (Just looked it up (Cheesman, H. Business Law, McGraw Hill, NY 2000)) since Peter didn't obtain permission then DD in turn doesn't have permission as well... However I hope that everything is an honest misunderstanding (The last thing the QL world needs is problems of this nature) and let's leave it at that :-). Everybody knows so far that I do distance myself from these things and I wouldn't want my previous mail to be regarded as taking sides... Regards, Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 5/11/2002 9:36:12 ??, ?/? Bill Cable [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: Wolfgang, What if you already own a current legal copy of SMSQ/E in QPC2 or some other way when you buy a Q40/60 as many already do. Surely you do not have to buy it twice. -- Bill Now that's an interesting thought :-). However Bill, that's (legally) up to the software license. If it doesn't EXPLICITLY state that for every platform you NEED to have a separate copy of the software (I haven't read the finalized license in length but I seem to recall that once you have one legal version of SMSQ/E you can use the other ones) then a current SMSQ/E owner doesn't have a problem getting SMSQ/E from another source... However if that source CHARGES a fee for it then in that case there is a LEGAL problem which doesn't in any case concern the final user as he or she does have a license already... In which case (to restate the obvious) the dispute lies between the SMSQ/E source AND TT not both the end user and SMSQ/E source AND TT (Sounds complicated doesn't it?) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I just wanted to point out something to the general QL world at large: as you all know, SMSQ/E is being made available publicly, under a licence that was discussed at length here. This licence is now the current licence for all versions of SMSQ/E. Under this licence, only appointed resellers may sell the software, provided, notably, that a 10 euro payment is made to Tony Tebby for each copy sold. Today, DD systems are selling the Q40/Q60. These are machines that contain SMSQ/E in ROM (they cannot boot otherwise). DD have NOT even requested to become a software reseller. They are NOT paying the licence fees. This means that these people are currently selling something for which they have no licence and which they do not have the right to distribute - in other words, counterfeit software. Doesn't this mean that they are software pirates? Even worse, this means that YOU, when you are buying this machine with this software, are also using counterfeit software, and by extension, when using the Q40/Q60, you are also a software pirate. Do you really want to be? Wolfgang Wolfgang, this email of yours is wrong on so many levels. Aside from any legal flaws in your argument, and there are a couple of great big ones, you have a responsibility to handle these issues in a discreet and diplomatic manner. This message is indiscreet, undiplomatic, and certainly libellous. As for the legal arguments, releasing software under a new license does not automatically make that license applicable to all previous or parallel versions. The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. Any such activity is absolutely legal, and your accusation that it is not is not only wrong (due to lack of evidence, not finding of fact) but places you in a very VERY unenviable position. Up until this moment, I have felt you've been working in the best interest of the SMSQ/E community, but having read this very ill-advised post, I can only conclude that you do not posses the diplomacy skills required of a registrar. Accusing others of impropriety without very solid evidence, in such a public forum, is an impropriety in itself. You may be right, but that is hardly the point. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 8:46, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Wolfgang, I was under the impression that Peter had acquired (ie paid) the rights to resell/modify SMSQ/E... Not that I know of Even it isn't so, I do not believe that DD would want to hijack the software only that there's an honest misunderstanding somewhere I hope :-) I've kept my fingers crossed for so long now that I can't undo them anymore. But I DOUBT. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 10:05, Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote: Now that's an interesting thought :-). However Bill, that's (legally) up to the software license. If it doesn't EXPLICITLY state that for every platform you NEED to have a separate copy of the software (I haven't read the finalized license in length but I seem to recall that once you have one legal version of SMSQ/E you can use the other ones) then a current SMSQ/E owner doesn't have a problem getting SMSQ/E from another source... (...) (Sounds complicated doesn't it?) Actually, it's pretty much simpler (oufff). No reseller may sell a new copy of the compiled code to you unless he abides by the licencen meaning payment. Thus, if you already have, say QPC, and buy a new one and get a new copy of SMSQ/E with it, you pay again. If you get an upgrade for QPC, you don't pay again. Same thing with the Q60. You buy a new Q60 and get sold a new SMSQ/E, you pay (again). Not so difficult, is it? If you did get a new copy and the reseller didn't abide by the licence, then you have a pirated copy. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 9:36, Bill Cable wrote: Wolfgang, What if you already own a current legal copy of SMSQ/E in QPC2 or some other way when you buy a Q40/60 as many already do. Surely you do not have to buy it twice. -- Bill Under the licence you do, because you get an entirely new copy of SMSQ/E -not an upgrade. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi Wolfgang, Hey, we live in a democracy - if you don't like what I'm saying, just say so (and if you do, too). Indeed we do, so here's my take on it. When your initial email came through, I though 'oh bloody hell, the shit is really going to hit the fan now !'. Why ? Because in a public forum you made quite serious accusations against other parties. Now, whether or not your accusations are true, a public forum is not the place to be making them. I believe you can be held responsible for what you write (say) in an email. (I think Demon got shafted some time back simply because they allowed a usenet posting to remain on their servers after being informed that it was incorrect etc.) So, have you tried to communicate with DD to find out if what you say is true, or whether they have some other arrangments etc ? If you have asked and not received any replies then there may well be a problem and if so, it should be sorted out between the 'interested' parties and not aired in public. If there does turn out to be a good reason, they you may well end up with egg on your face. I believe you have put yourself is a pretty awkward situation. Heck, if you think DD are right, say so, and also if you think they are wrong. If DD are not paying Tony then they must have a reason for not paying Tony. This brings questions to mind, such as - do they have a separate agreemaent with Tony ? - have they inherited some other agreement with Tony indirectly through any previous dealing between the Grafs and Tony ? - are they possibly saving up a whole pile of payments to Tony and submitting them infrequently rather than EUR10 here and there ? - etc. On the other hand, until all the facts are known, it is best not to make judgement - especially in public. Personally, I think you should have found out, or tried to find out why no payments are/were being made and dealt with the matter through private means. In the event of no success, turned the matter over to Tony - it is his money after all, but putting the details on a public forum was wrong. Regards, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? Hi all, I just wanted to point out something to the general QL world at large: as you all know, SMSQ/E is being made available publicly, under a licence that was discussed at length here. This licence is now the current licence for all versions of SMSQ/E. Under this licence, only appointed resellers may sell the software, provided, notably, that a 10 euro payment is made to Tony Tebby for each copy sold. Today, DD systems are selling the Q40/Q60. These are machines that contain SMSQ/E in ROM (they cannot boot otherwise). DD have NOT even requested to become a software reseller. They are NOT paying the licence fees. This means that these people are currently selling something for which they have no licence and which they do not have the right to distribute - in other words, counterfeit software. Doesn't this mean that they are software pirates? Even worse, this means that YOU, when you are buying this machine with this software, are also using counterfeit software, and by extension, when using the Q40/Q60, you are also a software pirate. Do you really want to be? Wolfgang I suspect that many of probable Q40i/Q60 purchasers are already owners of SMSQE for one of the various platforms, If I go ahead and purchase a Q60 as an upgrade from Q40 I already own SMSQE for that machine, I also use SMSQE for Aurora and SuperGold Card how many times do you want me to buy it. Considering that the original purchase promised features that have taken years to include and some still not included isn't it time to give a little to user such as I who have parted with money on trust for so many years. C'mon guys it's a hobby and a hobby that includes some nice people, some very clever people, some understanding traders and some very patient users and no pirates that I recall. There are not enough of us left that we should start an us and them war. all the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 5/11/2002 3:07:40 ??, ?/? Bill Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? Hi all, I just wanted to point out something to the general QL world at large: as you all know, SMSQ/E is being made available publicly, under a licence that was discussed at length here. This licence is now the current licence for all versions of SMSQ/E. Under this licence, only appointed resellers may sell the software, provided, notably, that a 10 euro payment is made to Tony Tebby for each copy sold. Today, DD systems are selling the Q40/Q60. These are machines that contain SMSQ/E in ROM (they cannot boot otherwise). DD have NOT even requested to become a software reseller. They are NOT paying the licence fees. This means that these people are currently selling something for which they have no licence and which they do not have the right to distribute - in other words, counterfeit software. Doesn't this mean that they are software pirates? Even worse, this means that YOU, when you are buying this machine with this software, are also using counterfeit software, and by extension, when using the Q40/Q60, you are also a software pirate. Do you really want to be? Wolfgang I suspect that many of probable Q40i/Q60 purchasers are already owners of SMSQE for one of the various platforms, If I go ahead and purchase a Q60 as an upgrade from Q40 I already own SMSQE for that machine, I also use SMSQE for Aurora and SuperGold Card how many times do you want me to buy it. Considering that the original purchase promised features that have taken years to include and some still not included isn't it time to give a little to user such as I who have parted with money on trust for so many years. C'mon guys it's a hobby and a hobby that includes some nice people, some very clever people, some understanding traders and some very patient users and no pirates that I recall. There are not enough of us left that we should start an us and them war. all the best - Bill I have to agree with Bill (and Bill Cable) on more than one levels... Apart from what's legal (or not legal), there should be a level of reason among users, vendors and developers. SMSQ/E originally did include upgrades in the price (and that's how I got QPC originally). I do not agree with the term completely new operating system because it is not completely new. The fact that some modules change from one platform to the next doesn't mean anything. Totally new means that it does something that wasn't there originally and with the exception of the GD2, as Bill (Waugh) pointed out, everything that wass promised to us was never delivered. Under that assumption SMSQ/E from DD is indeed an upgrade and not a completely new O/S. Now if TT (or somebody else) shows me an SMSQ/E with meta drivers, memory protection, embeded microGui etc.. .then yes I would consider that a new product but what is now... is not new (maybe better implemented... but most of them were there originally and newer versions just ironed out some bugs)... Now on what's LEGAL, Wolfgang is absolutely right, provided that SMSQ/E is a NEW product which after some thought I don't think it is... just an upgrade... We all have been operating under that assumption else many QPC sales wouldn't be possible right? Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 5/11/2002 12:23:18 ??, ?/? Dave P [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I just wanted to point out something to the general QL world at large: as you all know, SMSQ/E is being made available publicly, under a licence that was discussed at length here. This licence is now the current licence for all versions of SMSQ/E. Under this licence, only appointed resellers may sell the software, provided, notably, that a 10 euro payment is made to Tony Tebby for each copy sold. Today, DD systems are selling the Q40/Q60. These are machines that contain SMSQ/E in ROM (they cannot boot otherwise). DD have NOT even requested to become a software reseller. They are NOT paying the licence fees. This means that these people are currently selling something for which they have no licence and which they do not have the right to distribute - in other words, counterfeit software. Doesn't this mean that they are software pirates? Even worse, this means that YOU, when you are buying this machine with this software, are also using counterfeit software, and by extension, when using the Q40/Q60, you are also a software pirate. Do you really want to be? Wolfgang Wolfgang, this email of yours is wrong on so many levels. Aside from any legal flaws in your argument, and there are a couple of great big ones, you have a responsibility to handle these issues in a discreet and diplomatic manner. This message is indiscreet, undiplomatic, and certainly libellous. As for the legal arguments, releasing software under a new license does not automatically make that license applicable to all previous or parallel versions. The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. Any such activity is absolutely legal, and your accusation that it is not is not only wrong (due to lack of evidence, not finding of fact) but places you in a very VERY unenviable position. Up until this moment, I have felt you've been working in the best interest of the SMSQ/E community, but having read this very ill- advised post, I can only conclude that you do not posses the diplomacy skills required of a registrar. Accusing others of impropriety without very solid evidence, in such a public forum, is an impropriety in itself. You may be right, but that is hardly the point. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 5/11/2002 12:23:18 ??, ?/? Dave P [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: snip on Dave's email After careful consideration and drawing on my own experience on skirmishes on Ql-Users (everybody probably remembers the huge misunderstanding between me and Richard Z. in which I grossly misunderstood him and a very bad reaction - mostly erroneous and out of context on my part- ensued), I have to say the following to conclude the matter: 1. It is indeed not very constructive to deal with matter of this nature publicly but only as a very last resort (As I don't =obviously= know all the facts behind Wolfgang's post I will not comment further) 2. What's legal and what's fair use are terms that are and will be subject to debate on this list as well as elsewhere on different platforms. My original comments were on the letter of the law. Please note that I do not and will not agree to the SMSQ/E license as it is now (However it's my personal decision to enforce it, I see it as something like the drinking age limit in the US... it's a failed concept but it's the law...). 3. I and I believe others up until now were under the impression that according to our original terms of purchase we were entitled to free upgrades. That was the idea behind QPC (where the price for an update covered mainly Marcel's work... the fact that part of this work was done on SMSQ/E to bring it to up to par with QPC it's totally irrelevant to the OS itself and very relevant to what Marcel charges). 4. For DD (as both Dave and Bill said) we cannot really say what really goes on until either D. or D. (sic!) say their side of their story (as it's only fair :-). However did anybody ever consider that this is not a CD we're talking about here but an EPROM which needs to be burned and then tested? Do they have to provide that for free too according to the SMSQ/E license? My personal opinion is that they shouldn't... it's not the same thing as copying a CD (which as we said -Dave as well as me and others when the original license was discussed-) should be allowed to be copied by PD libraries and even (why not) a very small fee charged for all their trouble, shipping etc... That hardly has ANYTHING to do with the distribution of SMSQ/E and I think that everyone would agree that the pursuit of a hobby, doesn't mean you need to blow your money away... (Some people ie. me don't have that much and the fact that we do love the platform doesn't mean we need to lose money on it... For example if I ran a PD library service (which I do in some form) and I provide SMSQ/E I should be able to charge something for the lost time and effort. Additionally, having to send my SMSQ/E version back to the registrar so my buddy that wants to check it out (even if no intention to incorporate the changes back to the original version exists) (since no CVS in the usual form exists) is hindering development than encouraging it. 5. Finally, the fact that TT did choose (IIRC again, don't shoot if I am wrong) not to make any money out of SMSQ/E any more but in that meeting you all had, decided to have him re- imbursed despite his original intentions to me at least means that he wasn't interested in getting anything more out of it. Don't get me wrong, I think it's brilliantly designed and as long as it was actively developed by him I had no problem paying for it, however now I don't really see why I should? Especially since the rest of the people that do develop it do not... That's all, in VERY good faith, Phoebus
