On 8 Apr 2002, at 17:25, Dexter wrote:
If you resent that comment, I didn't explain it properly.
Or I didn't understand it.
Yes, Tony will make a little money from SMSQ. I doubt the resellers will -
they'll probably cover costs. I was trying to say that some of the money
should stay with
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:01, Dexter wrote:
This is a reply to some concerns raised by Dexter on the future
Licence. Please read my more general reply first.
(very large snip)
Let me explain how this restriction relates to me, and how it makes SMSQ/E
unusable to me. This is a real world case.
On 27 Mar 2002, at 16:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Might be an idea to get the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides
to take the toys away again. Just an idea.
it has happened before, but won't now.
Wolfgang
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:31, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
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 :-)
That is very
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:56, Dexter wrote:
(...)
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
On 27 Mar 2002, at 9:24, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
1. The copyright for SMSQ/E is retained by Tony Tebby (Nothing weird here,
just like Linux)
Agreed.
1. There are (currently) two official distributors of LICENSED binaries and
ONLY official Distributors can SELL SMSQ/E.
The official
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:10, Dexter wrote:
No offense, Wolfgang, but you don't seem to appreciate the gravity of your
statement.
No, I don't.
Also, I'm not implying end users should be beta testers, just that beta
testers shouldn't be required to be programmers too.
Good, at least we see
On 26 Mar 2002, at 13:02, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
I sincerely fail to see the point in this. If you want to protect the
vendors, it is indeed EXTREMELY easy to provide protected access on a site
and you could give a password to anyone that asks you about it. This way
you can still control
On 27 Mar 2002, at 16:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
okay, i've stayed out of this discussion for a while, although interesting,
it seems that some of the points about SMSQ/E have been missed.
Can someone please send me a copy of the licence for the release of SMSQ/E
sources, so I can have
On 27 Mar 2002, at 19:32, Dexter wrote:
There are two ways to make money from SMSQ:
1. Be Tony Tebby.
2. ...
To be quite frank, I resent that comment. the decision the pay TT
some money was not his, but was an agreement we came to at
Eindhoven. TT has put in an enormous amount of time and
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 at 09:34:31, wrote:
(ref: 3CB16427.19667.AF2613@localhost)
On 27 Mar 2002, at 19:32, Dexter wrote:
There are two ways to make money from SMSQ:
1. Be Tony Tebby.
2. ...
To be quite frank, I resent that comment. the decision the pay TT
some money was not his, but was an
Wolfgang,
Just a slight question - will the sources include the source for SDUMP - this needs updating to support more printers!
Rich Mellor
RWAP Software
7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR
TEL: 01977 614299
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
On 8 Apr 2002, at 5:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wolfgang,
Just a slight question - will the sources include the source for SDUMP - this
needs updating to support more printers!
Simple reply : I don't know. I've never seen the sources until now,
so I have NO IDEA what they look like,
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Mar 2002, at 19:32, Dexter wrote:
There are two ways to make money from SMSQ:
1. Be Tony Tebby.
2. ...
To be quite frank, I resent that comment. the decision the pay TT
some money was not his, but was an agreement we came to at
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 11:08:08PM +, Roy Wood wrote:
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
On 27 Mar 2002, at 1:44, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
(hmmm civilised and Greek at the same sentence :-)
Ok, say we'll admit that Greece is the cradle of modern
civilisation...
2. There are (as Dave and me among others) some differences between what
you originally said and your clarifications
At 08:04 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote:
On 27 Mar 2002, at 1:44, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
(hmmm civilised and Greek at the same sentence :-)
Ok, say we'll admit that Greece is the cradle of modern
civilisation...
Ha! that was more than 2500 years ago... all we do now is party (and we're
really good
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 09:24:13AM -0500, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
1. The copyright for SMSQ/E is retained by Tony Tebby (Nothing weird here,
just like Linux)
1. There are (currently) two official distributors of LICENSED binaries and
ONLY official Distributors can SELL SMSQ/E.
2. The
At 09:33 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote:
snip
where the hell did you get all this bullshit from, what are you smoking
today?
Bye
Richard
Richard I want to believe you didn't mean what I understood... however I am
not going to answer.
Phoebus
At 10:01 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote:
At 09:33 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote:
snip
where the hell did you get all this bullshit from, what are you smoking
today?
Bye
Richard
Richard I want to believe you didn't mean what I understood... however I
am not going to answer.
Phoebus
You know what...
the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides
to take the toys away again. Just an idea.
-Original Message-
From: phoebus
Sent: 27 March 2002 16:26
To: ql-users
Cc: phoebus
Subject: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 10:01 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote:
At 09:33 ðì 27/3/2002
At 11:56 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote:
Oh boy.
It is little Jimmy's birthday party. All his little friends are there.
Little Jimmy's dad instructs (with naive futility) the children to play
nicely with the new toys [so adults can have a few beers in peace].
But (surprise surprise) the children are
You know what Ian, maybe you're totally right on this...
In any case I apologize to the list for the previous rant, but as you know
EVERYONE has his limits. I'm going to just put this matter behind me now
anyway...
Phoebus
Phoebus,
I found your emails on this subject important and
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 at 16:56:26, wrote:
(ref: Hb5f1240e71f.1017248184.ln4p1327.ldn.swissbank.com@MHS)
Oh boy.
It is little Jimmy's birthday party. All his little friends are there.
Little Jimmy's dad instructs (with naive futility) the children to play
nicely with the new toys [so adults
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 4:56 PM
Subject: RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Oh boy.
It is little Jimmy's birthday party. All his little friends are there.
Little Jimmy's dad instructs (with naive
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
1. The copyright for SMSQ/E is retained by Tony Tebby (Nothing weird here,
just like Linux)
1. There are (currently) two official distributors of LICENSED binaries and
ONLY official Distributors can SELL SMSQ/E.
2. The registrar (and only the
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:08:08 +
Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Dexter wrote:
So please, let us have a developer's license to encourage people to make
SMSQ applicable to a wider audience and to really help it grow. It doesn't
harm you, and it would certainly help you.
- Tony does not read the list.
- Tony did not do the licence. He said whatever
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Dexter wrote:
So please, let us have a developer's license to encourage people to make
SMSQ applicable to a wider audience and to really help it grow. It doesn't
harm you, and it would certainly help you.
- Tony does not read the list.
That
I don't know if everyone is ignoring me, but I made a few points about the SMSQ/E
statement that can make all of the discussions going on a mute point.
The statement says that no one can SELL SMSQ/E except for the distributers.
It made no mention of any person giving a SMSQ/E binary to any
Dexter wrote:
- Tony did not do the licence. He said whatever sensible you'll come
up with at Eindhoven is fine with me.
That was not obvious. Now I know that, I am very disappointed.
Why?
Most people are grateful to TT for allowing this option. We've had the
proposed license explained to
??? 27/3/2002 3:28:34 ìì, ?/? Timothy Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??:
I don't know if everyone is ignoring me, but I made a few points about the SMSQ/E
statement that can make all of the discussions going on a mute point.
I am certainly not... however there are some differences between what
Timothy Swenson wrote:
I don't know if everyone is ignoring me,
No, not intentionally at least ;-)
The statement says that no one can SELL SMSQ/E except for the
distributers. It made no mention of any person giving a SMSQ/E
binary to any other person (except for PD libraries).
Yes, IIRC
It is possible. DD Systems showed you that at the show. Switch off cache.
Start ProWesS.
Switch on cache. Voila!
This indicates another problem. In ProWesS during startup (and loading of
each ProWesS program) the OS is called to switch caches off and back on when
it is finished. So this
4. Any modifications/new code that is approved and entered in the
source
loses it's copyright from its author and derives the overall copyright
status of SMSQ/E. (In that aspect, modifications from 3rd parties on the
modifications from the 2nd party does not need to include the writer's
okay, i've stayed out of this discussion for a while, although interesting, it seems that some of the points about SMSQ/E have been missed.
Can someone please send me a copy of the licence for the release of SMSQ/E sources, so I can have a look at this.
1) Is the license actually definitive, or
To: ql-users
Cc: phoebus
Subject: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
At 10:01 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote:
At 09:33 ðì 27/3/2002, you wrote:
snip
where the hell did you get all this bullshit from, what are
you smoking
today?
Bye
Richard
Richard I want to believe you didn't mean what I
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Joachim Van der Auwera wrote:
I personally would never be prepared to transfer copyright. I would accept
not being able to get a fee for the work done, but copyright should always
stay with the author of the relevant piece of code!
In fact, if the code would later be
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Dexter wrote:
That was not obvious. Now I know that, I am very disappointed.
Why?
Because I pictured it that TT had chosen a license structure and chosen
three trusted people to execute it for him, Instead, he passed that role
to someone he
Dexter wrote:
Because I pictured it that TT had chosen a license structure
He certainly had some ideas and requirements which went into the
draft, like the registrar stuff. But I haven't spoken with him
personally.
and chosen three trusted people to execute it for him, Instead, he
passed
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Let's wait for Wolfgang to return.
Let me add that I am very heartened by Wolfgang's approach to these
'criticisms'. I'm trying to be as helpful and constructive as possible. If
the intent is to enhance development, I would like to help remove
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Claus Graf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
SNIP
It is possible. DD Systems showed you that at the show. Switch off
cache. Start ProWesS.
Switch on cache. Voila!
Not. ProWesS will run true but printing fails randomly and LINEdesign
will only print one page. After that,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
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
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Timothy Swenson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
SNIP
So, buy feel free to buy software and don't worry about your first born child.
My first born child is training to be a lawyer !
--
Roy Wood
Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK
Tel : +44 (0)1273
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Roy Wood wrote:
But that is actually the case if you click the 'accept' box in Windoze.
You are not legally entitled to sell your copy of Windoze 98 on to
another user even if you have stopped using it yourself. It is all there
In the US at least, that clause was
On 27 Mar 2002, at 16:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> okay, i've stayed out of this discussion for a while, although interesting,
> it seems that some of the points about SMSQ/E have been missed.
>
> Can someone please send me a copy of the licence for the release of SMSQ/E
> sources, so I can
On 27 Mar 2002, at 21:17, Dexter wrote:
However, reality check, SMSQ is such a small seller that I doubt anyone
would be able to justify suing even if there was a major infringement, or
the lawyers would earn more than the entire income from SMSQ in even a
very small lawsuit.
Yes
On 27 Mar 2002, at 20:59, Dexter wrote:
Because I pictured it that TT had chosen a license structure and chosen
three trusted people to execute it for him, Instead, he passed that role
to someone he trusts, and that one person plus two resellers seem to have
given themselves all the
On 27 Mar 2002, at 22:33, Dexter wrote:
Frankly, this is one of the best critical discussions I've participated in
- Wolfgang is showing the precise listening and diplomatic qualities I
would be looking for in a maintainer/registrar. Good choice Mr Tebby :o)
Blush!
The whole purpose of
On 27 Mar 2002, at 19:32, Dexter wrote:
There are two ways to make money from SMSQ:
1. Be Tony Tebby.
2. ...
And as a final comment...
Mr Tony Tebby,
Hi, just a small comment:
1-
First of all, the decicion to pay Tony some money was NOT his.
This was decided at Eindhoven. It is a
- Original Message -
From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
snip
No-one can legally sell a copy of Windoze
??? 28/3/2002 1:22:25 ðì, ?/? [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??:
On 27 Mar 2002, at 22:33, Dexter wrote:
Frankly, this is one of the best critical discussions I've participated in
- Wolfgang is showing the precise listening and diplomatic qualities I
would be looking for in a maintainer/registrar.
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
69 matches
Mail list logo
