RE: [ql-users] Source Code Status
Wolfgang, even though there have been astonishingly few reactions so far. Probably shock ! TT allows SMSQ to go 'open' - it shocked me ! Of course, I take that as full approval of what been done You have my approval. Hopefully, when you get sorted out, I'll be sending off my IRC coupons for a CD and having my first look at the source code. Who knows, I might be able to (a) understand it and (b) contribute. Good luck. Regards, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] Source Code Status
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:39:27 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Following the discussions at EIndhoven,here is what has been agreed upon, Tony TEBBY also having agreed to it: In short: In short this is GREAT NEWS ! :-)) Finally, I would like to add a personal note: A - Some passages of the above, mainly those which result in a limited distribution of SMSQ/E may loook pretty harsh to some of you, especially the proponents of totally open software. Open software is not an aim it itself. I see the openning of the SMSQ/E sources as the key survival of this wonderful OS, the fact that some restrictions (particularly style related ones) are put on it is, as far as I am concerned, a GOOD THING ! However, I consider that there are a few people (like JMS and Qbranch) who are the glue that hold the QL world still together. If they have absolutely no financial incentive to continue, they probably won't. In my opinion, the effect on the QL World could be disastrous. There are also some other people, like Marcel Kilgus, who have put an enormous effort into SMSQ/E, and would like their efforts to be retibuted in some way. Others, such as Peter Graf, have invested much of their time and money to design hardware which is still being built and sold - if no coherent verson of SMSQ/E exists, then the effect on sales could also be disastrous. The above all implies that some incentive exists for people to a) maintain an offical registration b) pour more time into developments beneficial to all versions of SMSQ/E c) BUY the official distribution, to have something coherent and supported. This incentive can only result, in such a small world as ours, from some restriction on the copyright. I HOPE you can agree with this. 100% agreed ! B - I have been appointed as the registrar (more by default than anything else). I will try to fulfil that role as well as possible. As I have already stated in this list, my main aim is to make sure that we have coherent versions for all machines. There will always be locomotives, i.e. people doing something new for one version of SMSQ/E, which will then also be applied, hardware permitting, to other versions. However, I can not do that work (alone). I NEED the help of some of you (who will be key developers for one machine) so that they can implement the necessary changes (if any) for each specific machine. Thus I make a PLEA for volunteers. Obviously, for SMSQ/E running on QPC, Marcel KILGUS will be the key developer. For SMSQ/E on Q60/Q40, the obvious persons would be Claus and Peter GRAF (yes, I know, I'm trying to twist your arm here, Claus and Peter :-) and perhaps also Jerôme GRIMBERT (?)). You can add me to this list. :-) What about the other machines? Anybody out there interested: QXL (Thierry Godefroy?) Why not ? Although my programming efforts will be mainly turned towards the Q60, now... Aurora ? SuperGoldCard ? I got Aurora+SGC, so here again, I could help... Thanks, Wolf, Jochen, Roy and of course TT for making this dream come true ! QDOS/SMS forever ! Thierry. PS: I'm overly busy right now, so I can't really participate to the discussions, but I will keep reading eagerly this thread and will only react in case I disagree on some point... To those who are wondering: I just can't updates my websites right now, I will do it ASAP (i.e. probably in two or three months !)...
[ql-users] NB:- New email addresses for Q-Celt/Darren Branagh
Hi All, Most of you by now will be aware of the the fact that I am leaving my current job (a Sys Admin for the the Bank Of Ireland) and will be running a new business of my own (a computer training centre/internet and email shop) . Therefore, as and from Thursday 28th March, at 5pm, my email at:- [EMAIL PROTECTED] will cease to exist. I have organised a new email facility in the meantime via my new business, Wicklow Web Centre :- My new email addresses will be :- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (private address) or [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (please mark emails to these addresses for my attention as 2 employees will access these too!) My Hotmail addresses will also be kept active (a lot easier if it wasn't for the spam..) :- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will be unsubscribing from the list shortly, for a few days until I can get sorted. The new email addresses are active though from now onwards, so can be used immediately although until I leave on Thursday night I will only be able to check them periodically, if at all. Cheers, now back to work!! Darren Branagh. Q-Celt Computing. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete this E-mail from your system. Thank you. It is possible for data transmitted by email to be deliberately or accidentally corrupted or intercepted. For this reason, where the communication is by email, the Bank of Ireland Group does not accept any responsibility for any breach of confidence which may arise through the use of this medium. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of known computer viruses.
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 at 08:01:22, Jerome Grimbert wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read } I have understood the bit about no charge in giving copies. As someone } running a PD library I'll mention here I'm happy to adhere strictly by } this. } I was surprised that media/post costs were vetoed I must admit. } Surely that is a bit of an imposition on the sender. Well, I was not part of the discussion, but I can understand some reasons for the veto. For instance, the QLCF library has been running along similar lines: - the requestor must provide both the media and stamped return package. That is what I was thinking of almost exactly, but I couldn't see mention of that. It was Wolfgang's longest ever email so apologies if I missed it. Outside ones own country, IRCs have to be used which is 'payment' of a sort - but in stamps. Surely no problem with this? -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname,demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read } Outside ones own country, IRCs have to be used which is 'payment' of a } sort - but in stamps. } Surely no problem with this? Probably not any problem, as long as it does not appear on the accounting system and thus leave no trace for the tax people ... and the usage of IRC seems pretty evident, so alegation of 'substantial income' via IRC would be rather easy to turn down (at least they can be put in the small allowed % of error.)
RE: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 26 Mar 2002, at 8:58, Norman Dunbar wrote: You have my approval. Hopefully, when you get sorted out, I'll be sending off my IRC coupons for a CD and having my first look at the source code. Who knows, I might be able to (a) understand it and (b) contribute. Thanks for the approval. I'll let this list know when I have the code. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 25 Mar 2002, at 11:29, John Hall wrote: Some hypothetical questions: i) Would I be able to give away my modification(s) in source form without including the official distribution sources? ii) Would I be able to give away my modified version of SMSQ/E in compiled form? iii) Would I be able to put my modified version of the source code on, say, Sourceforge? Hi I'm not ignoring your email, I'll come back to it a bit later... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 26 Mar 2002, at 10:42, Thierry Godefroy wrote: QXL - Thierry Godefroy Why not ? Although my programming efforts will be mainly turned towards the Q60, now... Well there doesn't seem to be anybody who knows the QXL as you do (did?). Aurora ? SuperGoldCard ? I got Aurora+SGC, so here again, I could help... Of course, Ill take any help I can get! PS: I'm overly busy right now, so I can't really participate to the discussions, but I will keep reading eagerly this thread and will only react in case I disagree on some point... To those who are wondering: I just can't updates my websites right now, I will do it ASAP (i.e. probably in two or three months !)... Just get back safe! (and not ONLY for the QXL's sake) Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
I have understood the bit about no charge in giving copies. As someone running a PD library I'll mention here I'm happy to adhere strictly by this. I was surprised that media/post costs were vetoed I must admit. Surely that is a bit of an imposition on the sender. Not really, the circumstances of SMSQ/E were a bit special, in order to protect the position of Roy, Jochen and Tony. We had to secure this position for the best future of the OS...and if this is a little something we had to concede then so be it. SMSQ/E needs a co-ordinater and the support provided by the likes of Roy and Jochen. This is not unique in the computer world, you pay (small amounts in this case compared to the outside world in many cases!) for the software and get support for it. After all, there is nothing to stop people sending a CD+ready stamped return envelope to the supplier concerned so that NO MONEY changes hands at all, in effect all that changes hands is the time of the person who does the copying. Which is what real freeware and PD is about I suppose. I'm very happy with the deal and hope others will support Wolfgang and the others concerned in securing this situation. I doubt we could have got to the totally free Linux type setup and in a small community like ours this deal may actually be better for us! -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 06:39:27AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Following the discussions at EIndhoven,here is what has been agreed upon, Tony TEBBY also having agreed to it: In short: Whilst Tony Tebby will retain copyright over the code, anyone may have a copy of the source code and modify it ang give it away for free. There will also be an official version of SMSQ/E that will be maintained by a registrar and be sold by 2 people, namely Roy WOOD and Jochen Merz. Support for this official version will be part of the price. The purpose for the official version is to make sure, as much as possible, that any change to SMSQ/E for one amchine (e.g. Q60 or QPC) will percolate down to all other machines (e.g. QPC, Q40, QXL etc...) as fast as possible, in an attempt to make sure that we have one single version with the same features (hardware permitting) for all machines. Any change made by anybody may be proposed to the registrar for inclusion in the official version. Ok, the above is the essence of what was agreed upon, for a more detailed version, read on: Official statement == as far as I could understand the statements I am not sure whether it is allowed to give away SMSQ in binary form (whether or not acompanied by sources), can you please clarify this? This might be of great interest for HW vendors who want release testing versions for new HW quickly. Btw anyone who would maintain a mirror of the code on some public CVS server? I could do it on Sourceforge but somewhat doubt that they will accept this copyright. Bye Richard
RE: [ql-users] Source Code Status
Put me down as a 'designated copier' - if you need any more. Regards, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 1:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status This is a valid point. I propose we appoint designated copiers who have agreed to copy the source files on CD for whoever wants them. they could liase with the registrar to maintain the up to date copies. I for one would be willing to do this, and sounds like Dilwyn would too. We both have CD-rewriters. 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.
[ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Hi all, I'm not saying anything here as personal opinion - I am playing devil's advocate for the sake of creating a little controversy, which will hopefully result in some discussion. At the moment there is too much agreement. :o) Ok... Deep breath... The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller. The decision to not allow any charging for sources is being rationalised by you folks as a good thing (taxes, etc). It forces the sources to be distributed by some free means only, ie the internet, and prevents it being distributed by PB/shareware libraries unless they make special arrangements. These arrangements more than double the length of time it would take a recipient to get a copy of the sources. The decision to not allow distribution of binaries is very restrictive to the point of being obstructive. I would propose the refinement to the license, stating object code/binaries cannot be distributed to the general public, and may only be shared at no cost for the purposes of beta testing, or for producing custom versions for specific hardware. It would otherwise restrict development and, combined with the clause mentioned above, testing, of the code. If only the official tree can be sold, how does a hardware manufacturer who produces a custom version of SMSQ/E for XXX hardware include it in ROM? He can offer to make payment of a license fee, but under this license, it doesn't matter, it can't be distributed in binary form, or for a fee. This removes any incentive for a developer to actually adapt SMSQ to specific hardware, forcing us to stay with the hardware we already have. I hope the four points above are lucid and explain the difficulties they cause. Looking for some more lively discussion. /devil's advocate Dave
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
Jerome Grimbert wrote: Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read } Outside ones own country, IRCs have to be used which is 'payment' of a } sort - but in stamps. } Surely no problem with this? Probably not any problem, In my area of the US nobody has any idea what IRCs are. The post office doesn't have them. The banks haven't heard of them. They are not available in central Illinois. I guess the borders are just too far away to have need for such a device. This has been an inconvenience and will be in the future if required. If we want the QL system to move into the future, why not use the internet to deliver software like the rest of the world? Lafe McCorkle as long as it does not appear on the accounting system and thus leave no trace for the tax people ... and the usage of IRC seems pretty evident, so alegation of 'substantial income' via IRC would be rather easy to turn down (at least they can be put in the small allowed % of error.)
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Dexter makes some magical things to make me read } Hi all, } } I'm not saying anything here as personal opinion - I am playing devil's } advocate for the sake of creating a little controversy, which will } hopefully result in some discussion. At the moment there is too much } agreement. :o) Ok, let's see... It's just my point-of-view/feeling. } The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents } growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. } If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably } illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each } country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller. That's easily answered by specifying either that: - Reseller must be directly nominated by Tony Tebby. - a would-be-Reseller must get clearance from the college of actual Resellers. the procedure for the college of Reseller is up to them. In case of conflict, the coordinator or Tony Tebby get the final word. } } The decision to not allow any charging for sources is being rationalised } by you folks as a good thing (taxes, etc). It forces the sources to be } distributed by some free means only, ie the internet, and prevents it } being distributed by PB/shareware libraries unless they make special } arrangements. These arrangements more than double the length of time it } would take a recipient to get a copy of the sources. Outdated argument, might has been valid ten years ago. Moreover, personnaly speaking, as I'm still the QLCF librarian, French people could get free access to the sources from me the same way as they get access to the QLCF library (even more easily, because accessing the QLCF library required to be on the right list!). I would not have to make any change to my management for these sources. } } The decision to not allow distribution of binaries is very restrictive to } the point of being obstructive. I would propose the refinement to the } license, stating object code/binaries cannot be distributed to the general } public, and may only be shared at no cost for the purposes of beta } testing, or for producing custom versions for specific hardware. It would } otherwise restrict development and, combined with the clause mentioned } above, testing, of the code. The only way to force fancy developpers to share their code is to forbid the distribution of binary. This way, code related to new hardware is forced to go back to the coordinator for inclusion in the main code. It is also the only means to have the reseller doing their work. Otherwise, Just Imagine: I make a custom version for some hardware, based on version 3.01. I distributed it worldwide. Then official version move on up to 3.30 (with lot of nice enhancements), and either: - I get hassle by my customers to update and either: + I do it (and everybody is happy) + I try to do it but fail du to a major incompatibility in my old design, and customers get stucks. + I say 'f**k up', and customers get stucks. - I cleverly disappeared or loose my code: customers get stucks! Whereas, if the reseller are responsible of the binary distribution, I could have simply given to the coordinator the patched source code, and new improvements get available to my customer. The burden of the price is dealed by the reseller. What I'm not yet confortable with is the 'pay-me-option' for my source if it is not free and how to keep the main distribution of source. There must be some priviledged people (with the relevant hardware for test) which must be able to generate the binary and test it. But that's the problem of the coordinator. Your argument for beta-testing is void, because, for a beta, I want to have the source available. Thus you distribute the source, I compile, and get back to you with comment on behavior and code. Testing a black box is not a good testing for code! Dissiminating time-unlimited beta is not a good thing either! } } If only the official tree can be sold, how does a hardware manufacturer } who produces a custom version of SMSQ/E for XXX hardware include it in } ROM? He can offer to make payment of a license fee, but under this } license, it doesn't matter, it can't be distributed in binary form, or for } a fee. This removes any incentive for a developer to actually adapt SMSQ } to specific hardware, forcing us to stay with the hardware we already } have. He should provide its sources to the coordinator, Get the status of Reseller (see first point) or buy them the needed binary for the customer or just refers its customer to the Resellers. Just my opinion.
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Jerome Grimbert wrote: } The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents } growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. } If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably } illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each } country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller. That's easily answered by specifying either that: - Reseller must be directly nominated by Tony Tebby. Reseller Nominee forst has to get TT to acknowledge him and respond. - a would-be-Reseller must get clearance from the college of actual Resellers. the procedure for the college of Reseller is up to them. In case of conflict, the coordinator or Tony Tebby get the final word. This would clearly be illegal under anti-competitive legislation in the EU and US. SNIP - regarding no fees for distribution Outdated argument, might has been valid ten years ago. Moreover, personnaly speaking, as I'm still the QLCF librarian, French people could get free access to the sources from me the same way as they get access to the QLCF library (even more easily, because accessing the QLCF library required to be on the right list!). I would not have to make any change to my management for these sources. If I want to download the source, I could. If I don't have access, or have slow access, I have to send some IRCs (which I can't get here) and media, and wait, and they have to burn and return, and I have to wait. How silly. The only way to force fancy developpers to share their code is to forbid the distribution of binary. This way, code related to new hardware is forced to go back to the coordinator for inclusion in the main code. What happens when this is, as I said, custom hardware? The code would not be accepted into the master code tree. If the code is customized enough to not be relevant/applicable to the main code tree, you can not release your code except as sources. So, for argument's sake, I decide to make a new QL add-on which requires SMSQ, and it handles files or devices in a unique way, and my code submission is rejected as not relevant (which would be the right thing for the code maintainer to do) I can never burn that cod eon an EPROM and ship it - my customer has to compile the code and burn the EPROM themself. It is also the only means to have the reseller doing their work. Only if the code is relevant to the whole community and is accepted, or if the master sources quadruple in size, and are full of #includes for each branch *yuck* Your argument for beta-testing is void, because, for a beta, I want to have the source available. Thus you distribute the source, I compile, and get back to you with comment on behavior and code. Testing a black box is not a good testing for code! Dissiminating time-unlimited beta is not a good thing either! The kind of beta testing you describe is the minority of testing. Say I sell an XYZ to Fred, and he has a problem, and I suspect the bug may be ABC - I have to send him sources and get him to compile them. Now, Fred is a) not equipped with the software tools to do that, and b) doesn't know how. It makes helping your customers difficult. Homogenized SMSQ. One code tree fits all, and if you're outside that, the license forbids it, unless your customers are all knowledgeable programmers. No customer service for unique situations. No testing patches or updates for custom hardware. You're not allowed to help the people who most need the help. The future board I am working on will be flashable. But that feature is rendered redundant because my potential customer would be required to download/be sent sources, plus the tools to compile them, plus detailed instructions on how to use those tools. I can't just send them an image. That is such a major issue, as a developer, I would just use a different OS. He should provide its sources to the coordinator, Get the status of Reseller (see first point) or buy them the needed binary for the customer or just refers its customer to the Resellers. I like the idea of providing the sources to a reseller, but again, there are practical considerations. Hey, maintainer, here's versions for you. 0.1, 0.2, 0.2b, 0.3, 0.4, 0.4X (custom for Fred), 0.9, 0.99, 1.0, 1.0a Now, no developer will work in isolation. There will be, maybe, 5 people who would have hardware and be using/testing, and some will be capable of handling sources, and some wouldn't. Do the math. It's bulky, lots of excess work, and not relevant to the SMSQ code tree. Also, say I write something, which is new, but needs to be part of SMSQ, like, say, a complete new FS. I want to retain my (C) and collect fees or royalties. How do I do that? (No, this isn't happening, I have my devil's advocate hat on). Modifications to TT's work create a derivitive work to which he retains copyright,
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Your argument for beta-testing is void, because, for a beta, I want to have the source available. Thus you distribute the source, I compile, and get back to you with comment on behavior and code. Testing a black box is not a good testing for code! Dissiminating time-unlimited beta is not a good thing either! Er... beta testing IS black-box testing. Beta testing is done by end-users who volunteer to take an early release. And in the commercial world even alpha [in-house] testing is done mainly by teams of testers who normally have very limited access to the source code (and probably wouldn't understand it anyway). Only unit testing and early integration testing is [supposed to be :) ] done by developers. Admittedly, black-box testing often makes it harder for the developer to reproduce a reported bug, but at least the bugs are being found and (hopefully) reported. Testing also tends to be less 'structured' which means the testers will be trying many scenarios that the developer would not necessarily consider when testing against their source code. Black-box testing has been demonstrated to be a valid and worthwhile technique, but is not intended to be used exclusively. By the way, I've been following all the discussion on this topic, and am enthusiastic about the future of SMSQ/E as long as the project is well managed. I do however believe there is room for a limited amount of divergence of versions, to support different hardware platforms without having to stick to the Lowest Common Denominator approach, e.g. the FPU/No FPU situation. Ian. -Original Message- From: jerome.grimbert Sent: 26 March 2002 15:47 To: ql-users Cc: jerome.grimbert Subject: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms Dexter makes some magical things to make me read } Hi all, } } I'm not saying anything here as personal opinion - I am playing devil's } advocate for the sake of creating a little controversy, which will } hopefully result in some discussion. At the moment there is too much } agreement. :o) Ok, let's see... It's just my point-of-view/feeling. } The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents } growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. } If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably } illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each } country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller. That's easily answered by specifying either that: - Reseller must be directly nominated by Tony Tebby. - a would-be-Reseller must get clearance from the college of actual Resellers. the procedure for the college of Reseller is up to them. In case of conflict, the coordinator or Tony Tebby get the final word. } } The decision to not allow any charging for sources is being rationalised } by you folks as a good thing (taxes, etc). It forces the sources to be } distributed by some free means only, ie the internet, and prevents it } being distributed by PB/shareware libraries unless they make special } arrangements. These arrangements more than double the length of time it } would take a recipient to get a copy of the sources. Outdated argument, might has been valid ten years ago. Moreover, personnaly speaking, as I'm still the QLCF librarian, French people could get free access to the sources from me the same way as they get access to the QLCF library (even more easily, because accessing the QLCF library required to be on the right list!). I would not have to make any change to my management for these sources. } } The decision to not allow distribution of binaries is very restrictive to } the point of being obstructive. I would propose the refinement to the } license, stating object code/binaries cannot be distributed to the general } public, and may only be shared at no cost for the purposes of beta } testing, or for producing custom versions for specific hardware. It would } otherwise restrict development and, combined with the clause mentioned } above, testing, of the code. The only way to force fancy developpers to share their code is to forbid the distribution of binary. This way, code related to new hardware is forced to go back to the coordinator for inclusion in the main code. It is also the only means to have the reseller doing their work. Otherwise, Just Imagine: I make a custom version for some hardware, based on version 3.01. I distributed it worldwide. Then official version move on up to 3.30 (with lot of nice enhancements), and either: - I get hassle by my customers to update and either: + I do it (and everybody is happy) + I try to do it but fail du to a major incompatibility in my old design, and customers get stucks. + I say 'f**k up', and customers get stucks. - I cleverly disappeared or loose my
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 09:46 ðì 26/3/2002, you wrote: Hi all, I'm not saying anything here as personal opinion - I am playing devil's advocate for the sake of creating a little controversy, which will hopefully result in some discussion. At the moment there is too much agreement. :o) Ok... Deep breath... The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller. It is not flawed for a simple reason. For all terms and specifications, TT gave ALL rights to distribution to Jochen Merz (Which is LEGAL) so in this aspect the source of SMSQ/E (not source as program source but as point of origin) is NOT Tony Tebby but Jochen Merz. What is ILLEGAL is for him to hog the market which he doesn't do anyway In a recent discussion I had with him he had no objection of giving me SMSQ/E to sell in the US. The fact that the deal didn't go through has nothing to do with him, but with me having not enough time to pursue it. I am sure that if Tony Firshman wanted to sell SMSQ/E as well Jochen wouldn't have an objection either. The problem with the SMSQ/E market is that there aren't enough traders around the world, and even not enough users. No trader in his right mind would ask ANYBODY to sell ANYTHING if the potential buyers were 0 :-). So you see, there's nothing ILLEGAL per se with SMSQ/E being sold currently by Q-Branch and JMS only... it's just a matter of situation and not restrictions :-) The decision to not allow any charging for sources is being rationalised by you folks as a good thing (taxes, etc). It forces the sources to be distributed by some free means only, ie the internet, and prevents it being distributed by PB/shareware libraries unless they make special arrangements. These arrangements more than double the length of time it would take a recipient to get a copy of the sources. The decision to not allow distribution of binaries is very restrictive to the point of being obstructive. I would propose the refinement to the license, stating object code/binaries cannot be distributed to the general public, and may only be shared at no cost for the purposes of beta testing, or for producing custom versions for specific hardware. It would otherwise restrict development and, combined with the clause mentioned above, testing, of the code. If only the official tree can be sold, how does a hardware manufacturer who produces a custom version of SMSQ/E for XXX hardware include it in ROM? He can offer to make payment of a license fee, but under this license, it doesn't matter, it can't be distributed in binary form, or for a fee. This removes any incentive for a developer to actually adapt SMSQ to specific hardware, forcing us to stay with the hardware we already have. I understand your points but the situation with SMSQ/E is in a bit of dire straits right now... Let me explain why I think the solution given is the right one. (and also why I think that you are right about refining the license) 1. Traders MUST be able to keep their (already small) sales with no repercussions. In that aspect imposing selling restrictions makes sure that they will get exactly as much as they were getting before (See also above my comments for selling SMSQ/E) 2. Potential PD libraries are prohibited from SELLING unofficial binaries under the pretense of Copying fees, mailing etc... It's really easy to add an all-purpose handling fee which would essentially be a fee that wouldn't be returned to the copyright owner. This is essential for a community as small as ours. PD libraries could still provide hosting space for those who would want to download the sources which would be free anyway. 3. Indeed IRC's are not available even at the place I am but we could provide some method of doing it by appointing some distributor of the sources in the US. (I do volunteer btw). This way, someone could just send me the stamps and that would be essentially the same as the IRCs :-) (By no means though this means that this is a perfect solution... but hey we live in an imperfect world). 4. Developers really MUST be able to distribute enhanced versions of SMSQ/E with potential hardware. This is not a constraint right now, cause really there's no REAL hardware in development but could change in the future. I think that the best solution for that would be to have a beta test status on the binaries. This way the developer could freely distribute the hardware/software combination and when the change would be approved, that would change the software to legal-approved status and the developer could either charge extra or (by prior agreement with the official distributor pre-charge for it and when it's approved just pay the fees it should).
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
At 10:21 ðì 26/3/2002, you wrote: Jerome Grimbert wrote: Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read } Outside ones own country, IRCs have to be used which is 'payment' of a } sort - but in stamps. } Surely no problem with this? Probably not any problem, In my area of the US nobody has any idea what IRCs are. The post office doesn't have them. The banks haven't heard of them. IRCs are not Banking units, they are Postal means of international reply (Kind of a COD but only for the value of the postage) They are not available in central Illinois. I guess the borders are just too far away to have need for such a device. This has been an inconvenience and will be in the future if required. As I said too, International Reply Coupons are not available in my post office too and I am not sure if they are at all in the US. (Although with the USPS being a chartered member of the UPU (Union Postale Universelle) I don't see why it shouldn't (Then again we have a habit here in the US to withdraw from treaties that are not convenient anymore ;- See ABM, Tokyo etc ;-) If we want the QL system to move into the future, why not use the internet to deliver software like the rest of the world? This won't be a problem either as explained elsewhere. Lafe McCorkle as long as it does not appear on the accounting system and thus leave no trace for the tax people ... and the usage of IRC seems pretty evident, so alegation of 'substantial income' via IRC would be rather easy to turn down (at least they can be put in the small allowed % of error.) The way IRCs work,it is evident to the sender as a notice is posted on the return letter (when IRCs are used). (At least that's what happens in Greece). This way you have an additional check on the distributor's honesty :-) (Not implying anything by that of course... just clarifying the issue)
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 14:46, Dexter wrote: Hi all, I'm not saying anything here as personal opinion - I am playing devil's advocate for the sake of creating a little controversy, which will hopefully result in some discussion. At the moment there is too much agreement. :o) I knew it was too good to last... The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller. I **personnally** don't have anything against this. I do take this as a rather moot point, though, since Roy Jochen were the only people selling it now, really... Anybody who wants to be an official reseller can always contact me (which will be easier than contacting Tony Tebby). I'll then contact the other resellers and Tony Tebby. The decision to not allow any charging for sources is being rationalised by you folks as a good thing (taxes, etc). It forces the sources to be distributed by some free means only, ie the internet, and prevents it being distributed by PB/shareware libraries unless they make special arrangements. These arrangements more than double the length of time it would take a recipient to get a copy of the sources. No, the internet will not be accepted. Actually, it's just a way of protecting the people selling it (oh boy, will I get flamed now). It is also a way of making sure that those who do not wish to publish their source code can have it distributed anyway. YTou can always get the sources from me (unless you request one every day). To be quite frank, I don't think that it'll cost me more than something like 50 blank CDs - I can't believe that SO many people will be interested in the sources. The decision to not allow distribution of binaries is very restrictive to the point of being obstructive. See above. Also, I admit that this is a way to FORCE developers to gothrough me to have the binaries distributed. I can foresee that some will resent this pressure, and perhaps not develop anything. Just consider, that we're not doing this just in order to be unreasonable, but to try to get this thing on a coordinated road. The resellers have a duty to support their customers. For me, the situation is pretty simple: - either you are able to compile the code for your machine from the sources - then you don't need the resellers, you can adopt any change. - or you can't recompile this - then you should get your binaries from the resellers, who can handle your queries. I would propose the refinement to the license, stating object code/binaries cannot be distributed to the general public, and may only be shared at no cost for the purposes of beta testing, or for producing custom versions for specific hardware. It would otherwise restrict development and, combined with the clause mentioned above, testing, of the code. On the other hand, those testing the code, are most likely to be involved in the code writing, too... If only the official tree can be sold, how does a hardware manufacturer who produces a custom version of SMSQ/E for XXX hardware include it in ROM? He can offer to make payment of a license fee, but under this license, it doesn't matter, it can't be distributed in binary form, or for a fee. This removes any incentive for a developer to actually adapt SMSQ to specific hardware, forcing us to stay with the hardware we already have. This is a valid point I presume that this mainly concerns the Q60/Q40. Unless I'm mistaken, Peter Graf bought a SMSQ/E licence from Tony. There is no reason this couldn't be handled via the resellers, then... I hope the four points above are lucid and explain the difficulties they cause. I hope the replies do something to dispell your fears. Looking for some more lively discussion. Sure. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 26 Mar 2002, at 12:25, Richard Zidlicky wrote: as far as I could understand the statements I am not sure whether it is allowed to give away SMSQ in binary form (whether or not acompanied by sources), can you please clarify this? This might be of great interest for HW vendors who want release testing versions for new HW quickly. No, compiled versions can only be obtained via the official resellers. HW vendors have to get a licence now, too.. The quick testing of new code is a very valid concern. However, even on the Q60/Q40, you can LRESPR SMSQ/E, so testing can be done extensively before blowing EPROMS. Btw anyone who would maintain a mirror of the code on some public CVS server? NO! I could do it on Sourceforge but somewhat doubt that they will accept this copyright. Neither would I accept Soundforge. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
Wolfgang - Roughly how big are the entire source files in Kb/Mb? (Just curious) i don't have them yet... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 16:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Er... beta testing IS black-box testing. Beta testing is done by end-users who volunteer to take an early release. And in the commercial world even alpha [in-house] testing is done mainly by teams of testers who normally have very limited access to the source code (and probably wouldn't understand it anyway). Only unit testing and early integration testing is [supposed to be :) ] done by developers. It is true that in today's commercial world, beta testing is done by the end user. IT SHOULDN'T BE I'll certainly attempt to beta test anything submitted to ,as far as my time (and the limited number of machines I have) permit. By the way, I've been following all the discussion on this topic, and am enthusiastic about the future of SMSQ/E as long as the project is well managed. I do however believe there is room for a limited amount of divergence of versions, to support different hardware platforms without having to stick to the Lowest Common Denominator approach, e.g. the FPU/No FPU situation. This is a very reasonable viewpoint. I'm not sure that it is shared by those who have the machine that DOESN'T support a feature. When/if an idea (or even CODE!!) for a new feature is submitted to me, I'll alwaaays try to check with the key developers if such a feature is possible on the other machines.! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wolfgang - Roughly how big are the entire source files in Kb/Mb? (Just curious) Rough values: 1800 source files. 2,5 MB zipped. 5,5 MB extracted. Marcel
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: It is true that in today's commercial world, beta testing is done by the end user. IT SHOULDN'T BE I'll certainly attempt to beta test anything submitted to ,as far as my time (and the limited number of machines I have) permit. No offense, Wolfgang, but you don't seem to appreciate the gravity of your statement. Also, I'm not implying end users should be beta testers, just that beta testers shouldn't be required to be programmers too. Remember, the market for SMSQ is now so small, really, everything is beta. ICQ has more beta testers than SMSQ has users! By the way, I've been following all the discussion on this topic, and am enthusiastic about the future of SMSQ/E as long as the project is well managed. I do however believe there is room for a limited amount of divergence of versions, to support different hardware platforms without having to stick to the Lowest Common Denominator approach, e.g. the FPU/No FPU situation. This is a very reasonable viewpoint. I'm not sure that it is shared by those who have the machine that DOESN'T support a feature. When/if an idea (or even CODE!!) for a new feature is submitted to me, I'll alwaaays try to check with the key developers if such a feature is possible on the other machines.! There are two kinds of features involved. Both need to be handled differently. Soft features, which provide a functionality, API or interface for an application to use ina consistent manner, are very much the business of the maintainer and at the heart of what he is doing - it is through keeping these consistent that he ensures compatibility. Hard features, which may require changes to the OS to make different hardware look alike to the OS and applications, are much harder for the maintainer to handle. He a) has to have a sample of the hardware, and b) has to have an in-depth knowledge of what changes were necessary to make it happen. Think of the implications. Does the maintainer buy the hardware, or is the developer required to give/loan a prototype to them? *shudders* I don't think I'm going to devil's advocate that particular quandry any more - it's just getting too frightening persuing the ramifications... Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 01:01 ìì 26/3/2002, you wrote: On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: big snip of Dave's comments In light of Dave's clarifications I must totally agree with him. The more complicated the arrangement gets the less likely to develop ANYTHING. IMHO the whole point of making SMSQ/E public is to open it up for further development AND attract new users. Now because of the peculiar condition of the QL world, it is implied (and I believe that everyone agrees) that there will be a non-written gentlemen's agreement on how we are going to proceed with development. Furthermore, I think that we tend to forget that in most real world Open Source situations, money can and will still be made via other means (ie Manual, support etc.). I think that the best arrangement would be the following: 1. Sources should be available to everyone via any means (I do not disagree with the NO FEE, NOT EVEN COPYING one for the sources for the reasons I explained in my previous email) 2. Official binaries are available from official distributors 3. UNOFFICIAL binaries SHOULD be able to be distributed for free. If these are to be sold, a (predetermined) fee should be paid to the registrar/copyright owner etc.. 4. If an unofficial source gets approved for inclusion to the source tree, then it should be distributed from the official distributor (or the coder if a part of his fee -if any- goes to the official distributor) 5. The whole multiple dams/fortifications in the road to getting a test binary shouldn't exists. Imagine this potential situation. I write a driver for say a usb adapter for the Q60 (can't be done but anyway)... Then I send my source to say John Q. Ler to see for himself how nice it is Now say John Q. Ler is either not proficient in assembly or he doesn't have the assembler I used or he just won't use an assembler for more than that one time. They way I understood it, I am supposed first to submit the code back to the registrar, then the registrar back to John who will build a version for himself to test and use... or by buying the official distro. from the distributor. Instead of doing all this... why shouldn't I be able to give my test binary directly to John so he can see if he likes it (as he would if he were getting the sources from you) and save him (and everyone) the trouble of doing the same thing twice? So you see, indeed fine tuning is needed. I have NOTHING against the usual traders NOT losing their income (On the contrary I encourage that solution, since it's the best for everyone) but certainly the details must be ironed out. Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
marcel wrote:- Rough values: 1800 source files. 2,5 MB zipped. 5,5 MB extracted. Marcel Thanks Marcel. Not a really big job then to make a few floppies for the distro, although a CD/Superdisk/Zip disk would be a better alternative... Even the 2.5Mb zipped file would fit split across two floppies. Cheers, Darren. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete this E-mail from your system. Thank you. It is possible for data transmitted by email to be deliberately or accidentally corrupted or intercepted. For this reason, where the communication is by email, the Bank of Ireland Group does not accept any responsibility for any breach of confidence which may arise through the use of this medium. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of known computer viruses.
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 01:28 ìì 26/3/2002, you wrote: At 01:01 ìì 26/3/2002, you wrote: On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: big snip of Dave's comments In light of Dave's clarifications I must totally agree with him. The more complicated the arrangement gets the less likely to develop ANYTHING. That should read Wolfgang's clarifications and not Dave's :-) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: In light of Dave's clarifications I must totally agree with him. Wahey! That should read Wolfgang's clarifications and not Dave's :-) Oh. Booo! Funny thing is, I can see many sides to the debate, and when I read your email saying you agreed with me, it seemed you did. Now you corrected yourself to say you agree with wolfgang, I reread it and it still seems you agree with me. :o) Please reread yourself, Phoebus, and separate the *intent* (where Wolfganga nd I are in 100% agreement) and the implementation (where we're not, and you recommend changes also) May I propose the following... That there be two licenses: A reseller/user license, which allows for profit distribution of sources and executables by resellers, and not-for-profit distribution of sources. A developer license, which allows not-for-profit distribution of sources and executables by developers, with the following limitations: Executables may only be distributed directly to known parties, who are forbidden from redistribution. Executables must be marked BETA on the startup screen, with a statement of who produced the executable and when. They may not be distributed to more then 10 users, or 1% of the user base, whichever is greater (which allows reasonable beta testing). They must be uniquely identifiable. Where a beta executable is distributed, the recipient name and contact details, and the unique identifier in the executable, must be forwarded to the code maintainer. Where the system has a RTC, the executables must not exceed 30 days useful life. Where no RTC is available, the beta tester must accept a 30 day limitation on use for that particular version. If the developer later needs to include the executable with a hardware product, he may obtain permission directly from the maintainer, and when given, seek bids from any authorised resellers for fees for the number of copies intended to be manufactured (bearing in mind the developer is making the copies and all the reseller is doing is extending a license for X number of copies at no cost to themselves) so appropriate license fees flow back up the tree to TT. The maintainer could grant or deny permission based on compatibility, but would not unreasonably deny permission where there are variances, if the product is designed for a very specific use that would not affect other users (eg embedded, control, etc) and/or the change is a superset of existing functionality that is clearly stated not to be standard. If a user already has a licensed copy of SMSQ, a developer should be entitled to include the modified or updated version at no cost to the user. This should be true for same version groups only - eg an upgrade from 2.X to 3.X would be chargeable but from 2.2 to 2.3 would not. Thoughts? Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 01:56 ìì 26/3/2002, you wrote: On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: In light of Dave's clarifications I must totally agree with him. Wahey! That should read Wolfgang's clarifications and not Dave's :-) Oh. Booo! F That's what happens when you are an idiot LIKE ME :-) All right! The CORRECT sentence... In light of Wolfgang's clarifications, I must totally agree with DAVE! There :-)
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
In message 3C9EC61F.3028.A3898@localhost, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi all, Following the discussions at EIndhoven,here is what has been agreed upon, Tony TEBBY also having agreed to it BIG SNIP : Wolfgang Well laid out and expressed Wolfgang. One thing you did not mention was that a proportion of the sale price of the official version will still go to TT because we all thought that he deserved it not because he asked for it. I would like to say that, for myself and Q Branch, I think this is a very good development and one we should all embrace. I hope it will lead to further expansion of both the system and the user base. I would also hope that we can cease this fruitless competition between systems. All different systems which run a form of SMSQ/E have both advantages and disadvantages. I am very aware of this because I run three different ones here. Trying to shave a few milliseconds off a benchmark is a fairly pointless and boy-racer mentality. Extending SMSQ/E to use the colour drivers better, improve disk access, improve cache handling etc. is of more importance. I look forward to some innovative ideas and a brighter future. -- 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] Source Code Status
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 06:22:53PM +0100, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: On 26 Mar 2002, at 12:25, Richard Zidlicky wrote: as far as I could understand the statements I am not sure whether it is allowed to give away SMSQ in binary form (whether or not acompanied by sources), can you please clarify this? This might be of great interest for HW vendors who want release testing versions for new HW quickly. No, compiled versions can only be obtained via the official resellers. HW vendors have to get a licence now, too.. if there is a way for them to get the license. The quick testing of new code is a very valid concern. However, even on the Q60/Q40, you can LRESPR SMSQ/E, so testing can be done extensively before blowing EPROMS. blowing an EPROM is a matter of minutes, this is not the concern. However some software may need testing with the broadest available range of devices.. often by people who can't be bothered to compile SMSQ themselves. So lets imagine we stick with the official route, each little untested fix has to go to you, you may or may not choose to incorporate it and release a new official version where we would really need a test build, then either Jochen or Roy have the joy to send this update to whoever has the actual device to test it. The effectivity of this approach is really overwhelming. As we have seen with Thierry's CD driver this cycle may need a certain number of iterations before most hardware is functional with the new driver. The CD driver itself is not a good example because it can be conveniently lrespr'd but we may hit devices which must be initialised much earlier in the boot proces so this won't work always. Quite frankly I don't understand this silly restriction, it will only add headaches to you and the official distributors. People surely won't buy SMSQ merely to save the work of compiling it themselves, they will probably buy it to get manuals and added services (SMSQ hotlines ?;). Obstruction doesn't work well as access control and 99% of the cases will cause more trouble to the good guys then to simple thieves. Don't loose the real problems out of view, you will see it soon enough. Btw anyone who would maintain a mirror of the code on some public CVS server? NO! I could do it on Sourceforge but somewhat doubt that they will accept this copyright. Neither would I accept Soundforge. you don't have to, but there is nothing in the copyright statement that would forbid anyone from keeping an inofficial mirror on Sourceforge or wherever. Your paragraph 5 appears to allow that explicitly. Bye Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 at 12:15:47, Phoebus Dokos wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) The way IRCs work,it is evident to the sender as a notice is posted on the return letter (when IRCs are used). (At least that's what happens in Greece). This way you have an additional check on the distributor's honesty :-) (Not implying anything by that of course... just clarifying the issue) Not in the UK - you get stamps to the equivalent of an overseas letter. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname,demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes BIG SNIP I DO believe though that potential developers should be able to distribute their builds of SMSQ/E for free if they choose so. (Emphasis on free) because if they do charge something for it, the rights should be given to the copyright holder/manager. The reason that this was vetoed at the meeting was that the whole purpose of the registrar was to make sure that versions of the binaries would be compatible with most systems. For instance the inclusion of the COPYBACK_CACHE into SMSQ/E for the Q40/Q60 made it unable to run ProWesS with any degree of stability. Incidentally a version 2.98(patched) of SMSQ/E is being distributed with current versions of the Q40/Q60. I am sure that they have the legal right to sell this and are paying royalties to TT but has anyone had ProWesS running properly on this version and, if they have, why will it not run on my Q40 without a massive crash ? Wolfgang confirmed at Eindhoven that this will not work with his Q60 so what is the situation here? -- 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] SMSQ/E license criticisms
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dexter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Please understand me, I am not personally averse to this arrangement, but it is very awkward and not transparent, and is also potentially illegal. Now, I trust completely the two current resellers, but people may ask questions, and they're entitled to do so. Speaking as one of the resellers I would like to say that I was not really bothered either way about whether the compiled code was sold or not until we discussed it at Eindhoven. Jochen and I have made very little from selling SMSQ/E over the last few years. The bulk of the price went to Tony Tebby and into the cost of manufacturing the manuals and distributing the goods. During the discussion at Eindhoven we decided to continue to send a reduced levy to Tony Tebby, whose return for a lot of work has always been less than he deserved, and we decided on the 'licensed reseller' approach as a way of paying us for the support that we offer. This approach is not illegal by any means and is exactly the same as that adopted by most major software houses for other platforms - M$ included. No-one can legally sell a copy of Windoze for instance unless they are a licensed M$ distributor and these distributors pass the goods on to the shops and other outlets. Our community is very small so adding a distributor level to the process would be unnecessary. You can become a reseller if you wish. Just contact Wolfgang and he will speak with TT on your behalf. Maybe this is a good idea because the US users would have a better contact. Be prepared, however, to adopt the role of 'bedtime story reader' because a small minority of users seem not to want to read the manual and are happier if you read it to them over the telephone. One called me the other day to ask how to create a second QXL.WIN file on QPC2. When I told him it was on page x of the manual he quite happily said that he had put the manual away, was not at home and wanted to do it right then. Oh well in that case. Are your sitting comfortably,? Then I'll begin Once upon a time .. -- 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] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 05:58 ìì 26/3/2002, you wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dexter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Please understand me, I am not personally averse to this arrangement, but it is very awkward and not transparent, and is also potentially illegal. Now, I trust completely the two current resellers, but people may ask questions, and they're entitled to do so. Speaking as one of the resellers I would like to say that I was not really bothered either way about whether the compiled code was sold or not until we discussed it at Eindhoven. Jochen and I have made very little from selling SMSQ/E over the last few years. The bulk of the price went to Tony Tebby and into the cost of manufacturing the manuals and distributing the goods. During the discussion at Eindhoven we decided to continue to send a reduced levy to Tony Tebby, whose return for a lot of work has always been less than he deserved, and we decided on the 'licensed reseller' approach as a way of paying us for the support that we offer. This approach is not illegal by any means and is exactly the same as that adopted by most major software houses for other platforms - M$ included. No-one can legally sell a copy of Windoze for instance unless they are a licensed M$ distributor and these distributors pass the goods on to the shops and other outlets. That's not true even if M$ wants you to think so... Dave is absolutely right when he says that this approach is ILLEGAL totally... however for the reasons I explained to my previous email it is not illegal in our case. To further explain: If you prohibit ANYONE to sell an original version of SMSQ/E then no one would be able to sell their second-hand software for example. I would have to come to you or Jochen give you my SMSQ/E that I didn't want any more for this or the other reason and then wait until you sold it!. As you can see this is not only illegal but impractical as well :-) Our community is very small so adding a distributor level to the process would be unnecessary. You can become a reseller if you wish. Just contact Wolfgang and he will speak with TT on your behalf. Maybe this is a good idea because the US users would have a better contact. I am here and available for that :-) Be prepared, however, to adopt the role of 'bedtime story reader' because a small minority of users seem not to want to read the manual and are happier if you read it to them over the telephone. One called me the other day to ask how to create a second QXL.WIN file on QPC2. When I told him it was on page x of the manual he quite happily said that he had put the manual away, was not at home and wanted to do it right then. Oh well in that case. Are your sitting comfortably,? Then I'll begin Once upon a time .. Hey I have no problem with providing support on this but I don't see how many sales SMSQ/E would have in the US (apart from the few upgrades). That would be just a convenience service to the community rather than a business :-) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
As one of the Pacific Time Zone QLer's, I get to be late to the conversations, but at least I can have a try at the final word. 3/ No distribution of SMSQ/E may be SOLD, except for for the official distribution. This interdiction includes that of including and distibuting SMSQ/E in Public domain libraries. Official distributions will be sold in compiled form, possibly together with the official distribution as source code. For such sales, for the time being, two distributors, namely Jochen MERZ (JMS) and Roy WOOD (QBRANCH) have been appointed by the copyright holder. A strict interpretation of the above would allow anybody to give the source and/or binary version of SMSQ/E as long as no money changed hands. The part of not including it in an PD libraries would not prevent any person-to-person transfers. I think the above statement is very badly worded. I sort of understand the idea behind the statement, but there are logic holes that I could fit a Mac truck through (or Lorry for you non-American speakers). 5/ Any person may make any change to the source code he feels like. Any person may give away to others the modificaton he thus made, including the official distribution in source code form only, provided this is made ENTIRELY FOR FREE - no charges, not even copying charges, or charges for the media on which this is distributed, may be levied. But, a charge can be made if the original source code is not included, meaning just any new code that the author created. Also, if I can compile just my code as a stand alone object, is this statement saying that I can't distribute my own stuff, even without the SMSQ/E source code. Again this is badly worded and leaves more logic holes, esp. when trying to tell an author what they can or can not do with their own code. G - Is anyone interested in doing a nice documentation package? So many people out there have protested about no documentation being available. NOW is your chance to make a contribution. Well, I hate to talk about something in the works, esp. when I don't know when I might finish it, but I'm currently working on a Idiot's Guide (in the same vein as the one Norman did) for PE programming and on THINGS (so that I better understand it all). I would like to do one for the OS in general and have a draft that is only about 20% complete. I prefer to have documentation that does not assume the reader knows assembly. I also like the more complex OS documentation to use terms used by other OS books (processes, threads, atomic, semaphores, mutex's, etc). I try and understand both QDOS and Unix by comparing the two, picking up little pieces of each as I go. Anyhow, I've read the formal statement, and I've read a lot of the feedback today on the statement and I don't see a lot of the issues that others saw. Somebody make a comment about not being able to distribute binary copies of SMSQ/E, esp. if they compiled them. I don't see that in the above statement. Only a restriction on SELLING copies (both source and binary). The statement seriously needs to be revised before those Mac trucks come rolling through. I spent the last Fall re-writing By-Laws for a local non-profit, that was reviewed by the press and the City Attorney. I'm good at catching loop holes and making sure they don't exist (kind of like preventing bugs in code). As is, the above mentioned statement is fairly weak and contains statements that will not stand up in court. I'd highly recommend that it be reviewed by the registrar, TT, and any others. I really does not accomplish what it sets out to do. So until the statement changes, I don't think any one has anything to worry about. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Roy Wood wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dexter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Please understand me, I am not personally averse to this arrangement, but it is very awkward and not transparent, and is also potentially illegal. Now, I trust completely the two current resellers, but people may ask questions, and they're entitled to do so. snip for a lot of work has always been less than he deserved, and we decided on the 'licensed reseller' approach as a way of paying us for the support that we offer. The element isn't the licensing of resellers, it's that the current resellers get a say in who becomes a reseller in future. That is anti-competitive in possibility, if not in actions. As I said, I don't think for one second that you or Jochen would block a competitor, but that the arrangement itself exists is anticompetitive and does leave you open. Though I doubt anybody would sue over 20 copies of SMSQ ;) That would be kin to, say, Dell and Compaq having the power to veto Gateway from selling Windows. I hope my clarification helps. Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Wolfgang (and list), Because I have the distinct feeling that I am going to be misunderstood (once more... :-), let me also clarify some things. 1. As we in Greece (and in the US as well ;-) say, if you are given a horse, you don't look it at its teeth... by that I mean that opening up the SMSQ/E sources is a great development in itself and I welcome it with great pleasure, but I also would like to dissent in a civilised manner (hmmm civilised and Greek at the same sentence :-) 2. There are (as Dave and me among others) some differences between what you originally said and your clarifications UNLESS I didn't understand you completely 3. The details of distribution esp. to cover people with no other means of getting the software using IRCs instead of money (if they CANNOT get the IRCs in the first place), need to be cleared up a little bit. Open means open and not quasi-open (Open to people ABLE to get it in the method described but not to people lacking that ability - This is discriminatory in a way and I am absolutely against ANYTHING discriminatory...). In this sense we are creating two categories of QLers, the ones that can get SMSQ/E's sources and the ones that aren't allowed because they have no means to do it... - Please Wolfgang, find some better way to do this. I am willing to help in this aspect (as you can see from my other emails). 4. Contradictions between the text you originally submitted and your clarifications must be eliminated :-) 5. ESPECIALLY for hardware designers, I think that a provision should be made so they will be able to distribute some form of binaries (especially in ROMS) to avoid the problems vividly illustrated in QL-Developers by Peter (You do read that list don't you?). Unless of course again I didn't understand something right. In any case we cannot argue that this isn't one of the most significant developments in the QL just shy of the announcement of Colour drivers! That's all... and I hope I am clearer now :-) Phoebus
