Re: [ql-users] Source Code
OK, this has now officially gone well into the ridiculous (I'm using a fair bit of energy to stop myself from using a much stronger word). The fact of the matter is, this argument over the licence is pointless because no one can nor should win it, because it's the wrong argument. There is NOTHING in the licence to stop anyone from contributing extensions to the OS speciffically to ENABLE using free or commercial stuff as add-ons to it. As long as that extension does not 'close' a part of the OS, and presents an added value to the core (and here is where the Registrar has the last word, which may well be the most difficult part of that job!), it will be included. This is equally true for support of speciffic platforms. The support for a platform per se is not nor should ever be part of an OS core - the ability to add this support externally SHOULD. Arguments about a platform not being able to be supported because programmers writing the support will not want to contribute the support to SMSQ under the current licence are invalid because they should not contribute that support in the first place. The part that they should contribute are the changes necessary to have this support as an external module, AND THAT'S IT. All that has to be done is show the registrar that this contribution is added value to the core in general. There is however nothing to prevent anyone from contributing the source to a speciffic add-on (for instance, a driver) to be distributed alongside the official distribution (i.e. sharing the same media) but that does not have to fall under this licence! Arguments that basically 'appropriate' the OS under excuse of the added support for a platform, in order to leverage a specific model of code distribution are flawed because they are based on a notion that platform support can only and therefore must be an integral part of the OS and should be distributed as one lump binary (or source). * Problem: special platforms like emulators that may have parts of the OS rewritten as native code. It would be in everyones best interest to devise a standard way of doing this, not just for a speciffic case but as a general resource (yes I am aware this is not easy!). If a contribution becomes a part of the official distribution, under the current licence the contribution has to be free. May I remind everyone that by gaining access to the source, you will essentially be able to use code that someone somewhere has paid for to be written, essentially for free. It logically follows that any contribution added to the official distribution must also be free. Also, if we are talking about the resultant official distribution still being SMSQ, since SMSQ is (c)TT, so is every subsequent version. Anyone can write a functionally equivalent system, not call it SMSQ and have it be (c) whoever. It's been done with Minerve and there were no problems there. Cases where you want to retain (c) should be handled by only submitting the absolutely necessary part as an extension to the OS core (like in the case of platform support, see above). The registrar should not guarantee inclusion of anything, nor it's persistence in the core, for a very good reason: no-ones contribution is 'the last word' in programming, never to be improved or expanded on - or even completely replaced. There has to be a means to do 'garbage collecting'. The best way to insure that a contributed extension stays there, is to design it well, and in the best interest of everyone and not just a speciffic group. If someone wants to engage in conspiracy theories, thay may find more fertile ground for that by submitting them as scripts for 'The X files' (even though the series has ended) rather than clogging up this list. * Problem: there has to be a means to decide which direction of development is preferred and who decides this, this is where the registrar's criteria for inclusion/exclusion comes from. This does not mean that the rules should be included in the licnece, instead, there MUST at least be a reference to some document containing the rules in the licence. That should be the basis of any guarantee to fairness when a contribution is considered for inclusion into the core. Availability of the binaries in any circumstance cannot be guaranteed, and it is absurd to even ask this. A meteor could hit the exact spot where they were kept and they would be lost (If you get my hint). Much of the argument on this is again based on the notion of binaries for a specific platform. The core should be general, the platform-speciffic add-ons may (and probably will) be associated with the 'manufacturer' of the platform are the responsibility of the said 'manufacturer'. By having a general core which 'everyone' needs, you guarantee it is available from multiple distributors, so chances of it getting lost are reduced. * Problem: a LOT of work needs to be done to SMSQ before it reaches that stage. This work is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in the long run. Under the
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 21 May 2002, at 23:22, Richard Zidlicky wrote: this is reasonable - but it makes it even more clear that the license has a problem. Someone buys HW with SMSQ included, his vendor/original reseller goes out of business and now what. The user can't even get the free SMSQ upgrades for his machine. Well isn't that normal? I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is the reality of our world. If you buy a product from someone who no longer exists, tough luck. (unless you have action, e.g., against the manufacturer). Likewise, who wouls take care of a hardware problem, if tour reseller went poof? The situation for the software isn't different in that respect. Surely no other reseller will be delighted to fill the gap and provide both upgrades and support for pp costs. Ironically, Wolfgang is forced by the license to compile the binaries for this obsolete platform. Oh,no, I'm not. I WANT to compile the sources for the obsoltet platforms - but remember, I don't supply binaries directly to anyone but the resellers. (rest snipped) Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 21 May 2002, at 21:54, Roy Wood wrote: Actually no. We have nothing against commercial extensions to the O/S, in fact we would love it to happen. We just want the main code to be uniform as I keep saying. I don't really like patches but you can LRESPR code into SMSQ/E and you can add your own modules. If we can sell these modules we would be very happy to do it and if the people want to give them away the same applies. I'll graft myself on to this discussion, for another point: The possibility exists in the licence as it stands now that new authors will want a financial retibution for the code that they have added. I presume that this is what Peter calls commercial developpers. Anyone who submits a new source to me for inclusion could tell me that they want xxx EUR for each copy of SMSQ/E sold with their code included. I would not exclude code just because of that aspect. Jowever, I don't want to be involved in the financial side of selling SMSQ/E (and I certainly DON'T want any momey for doing what I'm doing), so I would just be passing on this request to the resellers. There is a questio here, that still needs to be resolved,a nd it concerns Perter's wish to buy out the Q40/Q60 binaries. As I understand it, Peter would buy out the official version as it stands now. What about new versions as and when they come out. Would they still fall under this buy out? What if the new version, to which something wonderful might have been added, wasn't a free upgrade? What about retributions for authors who also want money? The above considerations MUST be addressed. Wolfgang -- 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
On 21 May 2002, at 23:38, Jeremy Taffel wrote: A lengthy response, please don't flame, I would appreciate a considered response. And a VERY long reply... As long as you don't flame me, I don't flame you I don't think I did, at least, obviously you feel different... :-) Because instead of answering in a civil an unemotional way you get provoked into escalating the flame wars, and often don't address the legitimate (in their minds) concerns of some of those that ry to debate this. What kind of reaction do you expect when I'l being called a racketeer? (not by you!) (...) So he wants to program something, but not support it later on. Nice. That is not what I said. With the best will in the world, the key word here is guarantee. I know from personal experience that Richard, (and probably the others giving you grief on this list) provides exceptional support. You must know, however, how many platforms (and OS's) UQLX runs under, and any problems arising from unusual combinations of hardware and OS could take a long time for any individual to bottom out, especially if he hasn't got the access to that hardware. I imagine that similar guarantees are probably just as problematical with QPC given the variety of hardware and software drivers etc running Windows. Any such guarantees are essentially dishonest, and are only ever best efforts. That should be recognised, otherwise we should be asking questions like how quickly can we expect to get the bugs fixed? We don't because we are reasonable people. However some people when they read the licence interpret it literally. Well isn't that a legitimate question? If you buy on OS that is bugged in some fundamental way, isn't it your right to expect the bugs to get fixed? In the situation as it was until now, when a new version of SMSQ/E came out, it sometimes did have bugs. The users then contacted the person they bought their SMSQ/E from, most probably Jochen, Roy or Peter. They passed on the reports to Tony (or Markus, if the problem was QPC related) and the bugs got fixed. Ok, they got fixed sooner or later only - but they did get fixed. (At least I'm not aware of any major bug in SMSQ/E as it stands now - and please peole, I'm talking about bugs, not missing features!). I was making a serious point and received an unwaranted (in my opinion) sarcastic glib response. This really is not necessary. I didn't mean to offend you. The reply wasn't meant to be sarcastic, but reflects what I understood from your posting. However, the problem remains: How do you implement any kind of bugfix scheme in something like SMSQ/E if it becomes entirely free? Then there is no legal relationship whatsoever. However, many users require support. Hence the restriction on distributing the binaries. The reasoning I have always had is as follows: If anybody makes a change in the sources, then how will this be distributed? There is nothing that forces you to give your change to the registrar, if you don't want to - but then, you can only distribute your change as source code (if it contains original SMSQ/E code - if not, this licence doesn't concern you). If you give it away as source code, then, if the recipient can compile this and make himself a new SMSQ/E, then there is a fait chance that the recipient WILL NOT NEED ANY TECHNICAl SUPPORT, or at least, will know what the problems are. If the recipient can't compile everything, then he is more of a simple user - and he should not get untested binaries. He should buy SMSQ/E, or get an upgrade, from a reseller, who can supply support. (snip) UQLX is distributed as source, and in my experience most if not all Linux users are familiar with make-files. So lets see.. provided the developer provides the necessary compiler/cross-compiler and makefile(s) for the platform, he can freely distribute it as a set of source files. Sounds like open source to me. Only leaves the problem of how to get you to accept it into an official version (don't flame -see later comments). See above - if they can compile it, then they are probably sufficiently advanced to tinker with the system. There is ABSOLUTELY no problem in distributing the source code in this way - the restriction lies in the distribution of the binaries. We are still waiting on this list for a definition of support. It seems to be absolutely essental, but totally undefined! It seems, however to underpin most of your defence of the approach being taken. Ok, lets address this question here: What kind of support would you, the simple user, like? According to you, who should supply it? (snip) That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? But what's to stop you? Nothing. But, again, I don't see why one should suddenly change a licence that we have had so much trouble in setting up in the first place. That would only lead to outcries and rejections I think that part of your role is to provide the
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 21 May 2002, at 6:42, Peter Graf wrote: Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: There is no difference between the free and non free developper Sure there is. Your commercial developer has agreements outside this license that make sure his executables won't be lost, and will be sold for him by his resellers (which are also your appointed resellers). Not to my knowledge. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 22 May 2002, at 3:44, Dave wrote: The point is that people can write new modules that carry out *existing* module functionality, and distribute those, which actually increases the fragmentation of SMSQ in a way that the registrar is unable to control, because they would have no legal basis to do so. Even TT can't stop people writing replacement sections of SMSQ. Of course not. I wouldn't even try. Of course you can write replacement modules on your own, and distribute them. Not only that, once you have the source code, you can even write small patches, to get around some limitation or other, or whatever. There is NOTHING to force you to submit your code to the registrar. You CAN rewrite the whole OS. For me, the question is: why would you want to? Why not use your energy to make the existing even better, instead of reinventing the wheel? If your reply then is that you can't do that because of the licence as it stands right now, then I heartily disagree. The only thing you can't do under this licence is distribute the binaries - you can use them for testing purposes, which was one of your concerns. Why not let the resellers handle the distribution of binaries- hell, become a reseller yourself. If, on the other hand, you ansolutely want an OS with which you are entirely free to do whatever you want - OK, use Linux. It's human nature - I am certain beyond all doubt that there will be a thriving development scene for SMSQ, and 90% of it will be beyond the reach and control of the registrar. A situation which I would regret - but I agree with you, there will always be those who won't be persuaded to collaborate. I don't belive, however, that 90 % of the development will be done in htis manner. It would be in the majority of developer's interest NOT to contribute their efforts, but to simply pad out what is required and do a fee-based (not commercial, but fee-based, as in resellers are not doing this commercially, but fee-based, think about it ;) sorry, a fee-based what? Upgrade? Finally, I would like to say, as a moderate critic, that if you doubt my intentions, I would like you to consider my thinking for a brief moment. Why should I doubt your intentions? One who truly cares about the future of the scene will care greatly about what form this license takes. Yes, which is why I spend so much time on all of these emails. Those who do not care, or to whom the license is irrelevant, will remain silent. If I were a less honourable person, I would not point out the obvious flaws and weaknesses, or jump through the holes. I would leave them as wide open as possible and wait until they're adopted. Don't think your comments aren't welcome. I was, and am, well aware that the possibility to sell or give away your own add-on modules exist. But, as long as these modules don't contain any part of the original source code, not only don't I care, I can't even see on what grounds (other than moral) I would have the right to care (as Tim Swenson also pointed out) : it's your code... However, when it boils down to what really seems to be THE main point of the discussion, there seems to be an unreconcilable rift between those who fundamentally object to the fact that only the resellers can distribute the binaries on the one hand, and those who, like me, don't really understand what the fuss is all about in this respect. I can only say that, if my job as registrar, which I can see now will take far more time than I thought, leaves me some spare time, then I do intend to have a look at the code, and try to do some work on it. And, once done, if only the resellers can distribute the binaries for it - I DON'T CARE the least bit in the world. People may be critical, but that is a positive thing if someone's motives are to improve the license for everyone's sake. I don't criticise anybody for criticising the licence. When things get personal, though, I object, someimes forcefully. It's when a person tries to change the license for their own benefit, or stays mysteriously quiet that you have to worry. But how do you know that the person stays mysteriously quiet instead of just not intervening? :-) Yours constructively Thanks! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Hi all, I just noticed that the batch of yesterday's replies, that I sent early this morning, has gone down the drain, through my own fault (I sent them with the wrong from address, and they are filtered from this list, rightly so). I don't keep copies of the emails I send, so if you haven't had a reply it's no wonder... I'll try to make this up over the next few days. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 22 May 2002, at 2:53, ZN wrote: (...) There is NOTHING in the licence to stop anyone from contributing extensions to the OS speciffically to ENABLE using free or commercial stuff as add-ons to it. As long as that extension does not 'close' a part of the OS, and presents an added value to the core (and here is where the Registrar has the last word, which may well be the most difficult part of that job!), it will be included. Yes. This is equally true for support of speciffic platforms. The support for a platform per se is not nor should ever be part of an OS core - the ability to add this support externally SHOULD. Arguments about a platform not being able to be supported because programmers writing the support will not want to contribute the support to SMSQ under the current licence are invalid because they should not contribute that support in the first place. The part that they should contribute are the changes necessary to have this support as an external module, AND THAT'S IT. I agree, sort of. I still would like the developpers to contibute under this licence - but I can live with the fact that external modules are used. All that has to be done is show the registrar that this contribution is added value to the core in general. There is however nothing to prevent anyone from contributing the source to a speciffic add-on (for instance, a driver) to be distributed alongside the official distribution (i.e. sharing the same media) but that does not have to fall under this licence! Yes, as I have already pointed out! (snip) If a contribution becomes a part of the official distribution, under the current licence the contribution has to be free. Not necessarily,see my other email. May I remind everyone that by gaining access to the source, you will essentially be able to use code that someone somewhere has paid for to be written, essentially for free. It logically follows that any contribution added to the official distribution must also be free. That is the way I personally see it. (...) The registrar should not guarantee inclusion of anything, nor it's persistence in the core, for a very good reason: As mentioned, I do have the last word in allowing code in or not. As also mentioned, if there is no reason not to include it, why should I exclude it? no-ones contribution is 'the last word' in programming, never to be improved or expanded on - or even completely replaced. ... even SMSQ/E itself - which is why we are discussiong all of this! (...) * Problem: there has to be a means to decide which direction of development is preferred and who decides this, this is where the registrar's criteria for inclusion/exclusion comes from. This does not mean that the rules should be included in the licnece, instead, there MUST at least be a reference to some document containing the rules in the licence. That should be the basis of any guarantee to fairness when a contribution is considered for inclusion into the core. this is not going to be easy. Mainly because I can neither predict, nor force, a direction of development. All I can do is - ask a specific developper if he wouldn't like to work on some specific aspect - warn him that somebody else is already doing something similar. All of this development is based on collaboration. If somebody doesn't want to collaborate I can't, and really don't want to, force them in any way. I wouldn't even use the threat of not including their code in the source - the ultimate test has to be the usefulness. Let's just say that the remaining QL developpers, at least those I know, are often a strongheaded bunch (no criticism implied, just a statement of fact) - steering them, so to speak, will NOT be easy. Availability of the binaries in any circumstance cannot be guaranteed, and it is absurd to even ask this. A meteor could hit the exact spot where they were kept and they would be lost (If you get my hint). Much of the argument on this is again based on the notion of binaries for a specific platform. And I have gone on record as saying that I attempt to have coherent versions of everything (for all machines). I CANNOT guarantee that all binaries will really be sold - that is NOT part of my function. But if somebody is afraid that binaries for his/her preferred machine will not be available, they could ask to become a reseller. Of course, then you have to supply support to the end user buying the binaries. So we come to the question of support again - this seems to be a bit of a problem in many people's mind, as it seems to me that some people refuse to become resellers because they are afraid of the burden of support they will have to supply. I have thought about this question a bit more now. Initially, I had in mind a very high standard of the support that would have to be granted, such as that currently supplied by Jochen Merz, who was my role model in this respect, because I know how
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 22/05/02 at 14:28 Dave wrote: The part that they should contribute are the changes necessary to have this support as an external module, AND THAT'S IT. So who develops the kernel? That is a good question. It is really a cooperative effort, and the key to keeping it that way is finding a balance between the authority of the registrar and the contributors. The registrar has the final word on what goes in and what stays out, but this is balanced by the fact that he can only add what he is given in the form of contributions. In addition, it is reasonable to expect that the registrar will get feedback from people who get the new official core releases, and may consult others about his decisions, so that's another way his decisions can be influenced. This is why I mentioned that some reference to a set of guidelines will have to appear in the licence, the above needs to be formalized. It seems to me that one major concern is about how reasonable the registrar will be. The fact of the matter is, no regulations can guarantee a reasonable registrar - you can only implement a 'security measure' in the licence. One way you can do this is implicitly: if the registrar is unreasonable, the probability of someone sufficiently modifying or completely rewriting the OS using the source as a reference, to 'free' it from the constraints of the licence, and doing whatever they want with it, becomes higher. This possibility may not be such a bad thing (and it is extremely difficult to do anything against it anyway - with or without available source, availability of the source just makes it easyer. Another way is to do it explicitly: for instance, having someone/body that can veto the registrar's decision. If you want to expand that concept further, you can appoint a board of 'consultants', which then begs to define under which circumstances one can become a member, or stop being a member, etc (after all you have to guarantee that the board is reasonable too) - and you are well into red tape already. The reality of the matter is that the registrar is going to consult other people, and is more likely to consult some people than others. For one, the author of a contribution will be consulted if the contribution is unclear in some of it's elements. Then, people like TT, Jochen Merz, Marcel Kilgus, Joachim Van Der Auwera to name a few, are likely to have stronger voices than others. It would be very difficult to formalise a board of consultants right now, but effectively, some people are just that - people who are/were 'closer' to TT than others. The best you could do is to 'invite' a starter set of people and have that starter board vote in other members - and you would then have to include a possibility for a member to resign or be voted out. After that you get into conflict-of-interest issues with people who are developers and distributors, and defining wether it really is a conflict of interest or not, etc. The other way is sort of retroactive - through peer review, i.e. feedback. Anyone who gets the source can review all the inclusions, and provide feedback about them. It would even be possible to include, with the authors permission, contributions that are in the process of being decided about or even rejected, in a distribution, or even separately. This is really implied as, again, no part of the OS is 'the last word' and that includes contributios. As they say, there is always one last bug somewhere. This has repercussions to the notion of support as well. The registrar has to keep a trace on who contributed what. A contribution where no support (guaratees of absolute functionality, usage in life support systems, etc, etc) is intended or implied, is entirely possible. It would be up to the registrar to decide about this. Wether there is a board of consultants that gets to see this and can influence the registrar before the fact of inclusion, or it's negative feedback that gets it excluded (assuming it influences the registrar) is something to put in the guideline document mentioned above. Under the licence, nothing prevents anyone from rewriting the whole thing based on the source, and then doing anything you please with it. As long as you don't submit it to the registrar and it's not added to the official release, it is not covered by the licence. Aye. And if I send 100 Euros to TT, I can get SMSQ, mod it any way I see fit, and sell those new versions under the first sale doctrine, outside of the license, as they're licensed copies. Can of worms. :/ This is something that is ONLY up to TT. Wether he has surrendered rights to further licence SMSQ or not is something that has not been mentioned so far. This certainly needs qualification in the licence. My guess at this point would be that TT himself would have to work under this licence as well. It may give him the right to licence the current SMSQ 'snapshot' elsewhere, but it should not give him the right to suddenly proclaim something else the
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 11:18:26AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: May I remind everyone that by gaining access to the source, you will essentially be able to use code that someone somewhere has paid for to be written, essentially for free. It logically follows that any contribution added to the official distribution must also be free. That is the way I personally see it. than why do say in another email that you consider paying developpers royalties? I can't follow your logic. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:18:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 21 May 2002, at 23:22, Richard Zidlicky wrote: this is reasonable - but it makes it even more clear that the license has a problem. Someone buys HW with SMSQ included, his vendor/original reseller goes out of business and now what. The user can't even get the free SMSQ upgrades for his machine. Well isn't that normal? it is absolutely not normal. In a normal world technically advanced users would be allowed to help those less technically capable by providing the binaries. You are really arrogant here, this is the best way to convince remaining users that they will get better support when they choose one of the many alternative OS. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is the reality of our world. If you buy a product from someone who no longer exists, tough luck. Nope. If Mandrake or Redhat goes bankrupt the user has all possibilities to donwload binary and source packages from elsewhere. Notably, noone of the packages those vendors distribute in their standard distribution has such ridiculous restrictions as to require an official reseller or prohibit distribution of the binaries. Likewise, who wouls take care of a hardware problem, if tour reseller went poof? The situation for the software isn't different in that respect. oh yes, it is *very much* different. If my HW goes poof I am free to go to an electrician around the corner and ask him to repair the HW.. I may be more or less lucky. However if my SMSQ is broken and I would go to the next IT consulting shop in Bamberg and pay them for compiling a SMSQ binary they would be acting illegaly if they would distribute the binary to me. Yes, I know I could also pay them to become official resellers of SMSQ but it is my money so I may not want this. Likewise anyone who would do me the favour of compiling SMSQ for free would do it illegally in your opinion? Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:18:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 21 May 2002, at 23:38, Jeremy Taffel wrote: Because instead of answering in a civil an unemotional way you get provoked into escalating the flame wars, and often don't address the legitimate (in their minds) concerns of some of those that ry to debate this. What kind of reaction do you expect when I'l being called a racketeer? (not by you!) do you really think I called you a racketeer? If that is your impression than I am sorry but I don't think I have written this and I will of course clarify it in more detail if you wish. (At least I'm not aware of any major bug in SMSQ/E as it stands now - and please peole, I'm talking about bugs, not missing features!). there are a few, to the point that the OS is almost unusable in some situations. I was making a serious point and received an unwaranted (in my opinion) sarcastic glib response. This really is not necessary. I didn't mean to offend you. The reply wasn't meant to be sarcastic, but reflects what I understood from your posting. However, the problem remains: How do you implement any kind of bugfix scheme in something like SMSQ/E if it becomes entirely free? Then there is no legal relationship whatsoever. Linux also works without any legal relationship. Considering how many features it has over SMSQ it works quite well. However, many users require support. Hence the restriction on distributing the binaries. wrong answer to the problem. If users require support sell them support contracts. Should be actually much more lucrative for the now resellers. (snip) UQLX is distributed as source, and in my experience most if not all Linux users are familiar with make-files. So lets see.. provided the developer provides the necessary compiler/cross-compiler and makefile(s) for the platform, he can freely distribute it as a set of source files. Sounds like open source to me. Only leaves the problem of how to get you to accept it into an official version (don't flame -see later comments). See above - if they can compile it, then they are probably sufficiently advanced to tinker with the system. There is ABSOLUTELY no problem in distributing the source code in this way - the restriction lies in the distribution of the binaries. there is a *big* problem if I am supposed to pay 10 Euro pp for each user I wish to supply with sources. Have I misunderstood that part of the license? That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? But what's to stop you? Nothing. But, again, I don't see why one should suddenly change a licence that we have had so much trouble in setting up in the first place. That would only lead to outcries and rejections sure it would. Merely the possibility that it could happen is enough to turn me away. I don't know what other reassurances than those I have (vainly, it seems) tried to give here in the past I could still give you. I cannot, and will not, guarantee that nothing will never change, to do so would be absurd. I can only state that I still intend to make sure that every platform on which SMSQ/E runs now will continue to have up to date sources (and this binaries). ok, than add this as a preamble or something into the license. Otherwise there is nothing in the license that would suggest this, quite on the contrary the license leaves a few dangerous holes in that direction. I thus see it as my main work to try to make sure that this doesn't happen. ALL OF THE REST, including this debate about the licence, is, to my mind, pretty much secondary - but it does show how deep the feelings run, and how difficult my job will be made because of them. it is because one of the camps apparently dictated the licence entirely to their liking and you aren't very open about it. Ban the possibility of added roaylty payments or special agreements, add the comitment not to lock out platforms, remove the useless restrictions about source and binary distribution and things will look completely different. As to acting in an inclusive manner, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do yo mean that I will try to include all proposed changes into SMSQ/E? YOU BET I WILL. I can go on record here for that. But, to be quite honest, I must also state something that will probably make Richard howl with dispair: I don't believe that I will get many contributions. saddly I am afraid you migt be right, unless you will clarify the licence to be acceptable to more people. I also belive that most contributions I will get will be from MArkus Kingus, who has a record of supporting, at least, QPC, and also SMSQ/E. I WOULD LIKE TO BE PROVED WRONG! Oh boy, how I would like to be proved wrong. Bit I have had, until now, not one single suggestion of what anybody would actually attempt to change (not what they would like to see changed, but what they would
RE: [ql-users] Source Code
Richard, Linux Format November 2001. Simon is doing a series of articles on the various emulators available under Linux. The Sinclair machines were covered in that issue - as was your masterpiece. Cheers, 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: Richard Zidlicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 11:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code Simon Goodwin mentioned it in some article for some Linux magazine (don't ask me which). 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
I do enjoy the diversity of opinions and the glimpses of personalities that occur in the give and take on this issue. And I do not think bad of anyone for their position but it is surprising how different they can be. I would think we would want to give the source code to anyone who would want to look at it on a silver plater and allow them to do anything they would want with it in the hopes that Wolfgang Lenerz could merge the good stuff into an ever improving core operating system that is predictable and documented. Then hardware and software developers would really have something to work with. I bet 90% of us have already given our donation to TT for SMSQ so what more is there to give. He has been paid for his work. Do we have to keep buying it over and over or are we renting it? Unless there is some unforeseen demand for SMSQ that draws in new users there will be no more new buyers of SMSQ. In the past some of the most talented contributors have refused to participate in the SMSQ side of things precisely because of its closed nature and we have a fragmented community. Now we might lose another batch of enthusiasts who want to do good things for the QL. This license is strange and we do not need that. If I were a developer I would not participate. I would not mind giving my work away free to help the QL community but I would resent like hell its inclusion in SMSQ under the proposed agreement. The core system needs to be really free and open. The software developers who want to make money write programs we want that run on that core system. The traders stock the software for us to buy and add value to the core operating system that we will buy. There is no way around the fact that this is a hobby system and making much money is not possible. I do wish Quanta would take up this issue in a big way as they should be unbiased and have some influence. I realize there are limits depending on what TT is willing to do but I don't think this has been designed to get near the benefits possible. And I really don't care whether the core system is SMSQ or Minerva. I just want to see an open core system. This does seem to be a rare crossroad where we could vastly improve our future or continue on the same slow fragmented decline. -- Bill
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Thanks Bill, I am glad to see I an not alone in my views Regards Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: Bill Cable [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: QL Users [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code I do enjoy the diversity of opinions and the glimpses of personalities that occur in the give and take on this issue. And I do not think bad of anyone for their position but it is surprising how different they can be. I would think we would want to give the source code to anyone who would want to look at it on a silver plater and allow them to do anything they would want with it in the hopes that Wolfgang Lenerz could merge the good stuff into an ever improving core operating system that is predictable and documented. Then hardware and software developers would really have something to work with. I bet 90% of us have already given our donation to TT for SMSQ so what more is there to give. He has been paid for his work. Do we have to keep buying it over and over or are we renting it? Unless there is some unforeseen demand for SMSQ that draws in new users there will be no more new buyers of SMSQ. In the past some of the most talented contributors have refused to participate in the SMSQ side of things precisely because of its closed nature and we have a fragmented community. Now we might lose another batch of enthusiasts who want to do good things for the QL. This license is strange and we do not need that. If I were a developer I would not participate. I would not mind giving my work away free to help the QL community but I would resent like hell its inclusion in SMSQ under the proposed agreement. The core system needs to be really free and open. The software developers who want to make money write programs we want that run on that core system. The traders stock the software for us to buy and add value to the core operating system that we will buy. There is no way around the fact that this is a hobby system and making much money is not possible. I do wish Quanta would take up this issue in a big way as they should be unbiased and have some influence. I realize there are limits depending on what TT is willing to do but I don't think this has been designed to get near the benefits possible. And I really don't care whether the core system is SMSQ or Minerva. I just want to see an open core system. This does seem to be a rare crossroad where we could vastly improve our future or continue on the same slow fragmented decline. -- Bill
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes SNIP I have asked a simple question, no answer. OK I make it even simpler: Can I have Roy's above statement, without additions that make it void, from you ??? What are the additions that make it void ? If you want to a reseller, apply. If you are accepted you can sell it at what ever price you want to. We have not fixed the price at all as far as I can see. Your selling SMSQ/E will add 10 euros to the price of one of your systems that is al. l A large problem would still remain: My *person* is no guaranty to non-commercial developers. I can get sick, or whatever. Their rights should be in the *license*. If they are not, I can hardly expect them to work for Qx0 SMSQ/E. This is a different issue. If your non-commercial developers don't want to work under the licence that is their problem, not yours. As a reseller you supply SMSQ/E as it is, you supply updates when they are released, you try to get the bugs fixed when it is possible and you are available to answer questions and provide help. This is what Jochen and I have done for the last six years. We have no commitment to non commercial developers because they are, by definition, not part of the commercial scene. If they are so against this then they can write their own system and give it away for free. You already said they could do that. -- 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
and here the problems start. The people have already paid for SMSQ so the new reseller is practically only supposed to distribute upgrades and provide support. This appears even less interesting for potential resellers because they can hardly charge very much for an upgrade. Most upgrades to SMSQ/E have been provided free. The only exceptions were for the systems where there were colour driver implementations and where the actual version number changed. Jochen and I have done this without charging for anything except the postage for sending it out. So market forces would dictate someone become a reseller, quickly sell a few binaries and quit beeing a reseller. If you are waiting for market forces then the whole thing would have died out years ago. I can count the number of new SMSQ/E users over the past two years on one hand. I have not had a single enquiry about buying it since we halved the price. Your license doesn't say anything about how long a reseller is expected to provide support, nor whatever you consider support. Why don't you reconsider the get support in exchange for paying binaries in favor of normal support contracts? Jochen and I have been supporting SMSQ/E for the last six years. I expect that, even if I stopped selling QL products now I will still get called an emailed and, believe or not, I would still try to help out. I fully believe the same goes for Jochen. Maybe your market forces would produce a shallower trader. -- 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
Quanta have never contributed to the development of SMSQ/E If you say so, OK, I seem to remember a few years ago a big conflab about using the Quanta funds to pay for a new OS(SMSQ?) On the other points, as I say you have always had my support, as have the other traders past and present., and my sympathys. It has been suggested as a good use of Quanta's money but each time it was turned down. I last raised the issue at the QL 2000 meeting at which I suggested that Quanta bought the rights to distribute the non colour version of SMSQ/E for free. A similar argument about open code ensued. I just thought it would be good to get a lot of people using the same O/S since that would make things uniform and make it easier for programmers. As I said it was turned down. One point you make is that the QL is now just a hobby machine, why then all this fuss over a license for something people just want to play with.? The point is, as I have said several times before, that it is in everyone's interest that the O/S be as stable and reliable a platform as we can make it. Without the restrictions on the distributions of non approved code no-one can rely on anything working as it should. This would lead to the few commercial programmers abandoning the system and more customer dissatisfaction. When a program does not work people often blame the program and not necessary the patched, hacked and messed about O/S they are running it on. TT asked for a degree of protection to his copyright, I believe, so a licence of sorts had to be arranged and it all spread from there. -- 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
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill Cable [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I do enjoy the diversity of opinions and the glimpses of personalities that occur in the give and take on this issue. And I do not think bad of anyone for their position but it is surprising how different they can be. I would think we would want to give the source code to anyone who would want to look at it on a silver plater and allow them to do anything they would want with it in the hopes that Wolfgang Lenerz could merge the good stuff into an ever improving core operating system that is predictable and documented. Then hardware and software developers would really have something to work with. I think that is what is being offered. I bet 90% of us have already given our donation to TT for SMSQ so what more is there to give. He has been paid for his work. Do we have to keep buying it over and over or are we renting it? Unless there is some unforeseen demand for SMSQ that draws in new users there will be no more new buyers of SMSQ. We don't expect there to be any significant sales of SMSQ/E and there is no question of requiring anyone to buy it a second time. In the past some of the most talented contributors have refused to participate in the SMSQ side of things precisely because of its closed nature and we have a fragmented community. Now we might lose another batch of enthusiasts who want to do good things for the QL. This license is strange and we do not need that. If I were a developer I would not participate. I would not mind giving my work away free to help the QL community but I would resent like hell its inclusion in SMSQ under the proposed agreement. The core system needs to be really free and open. The software developers who want to make money write programs we want that run on that core system. The traders stock the software for us to buy and add value to the core operating system that we will buy. There is no way around the fact that this is a hobby system and making much money is not possible. Strange this. On the one hand we have someone saying they cannot use this licence because it does not allow them to charge for their work and complaining because they have to give it away for free and on the other we have someone saying the licence does not make the code open and free. As far as I can see the licence says that, if you want your code to be included into the system you have to give it away for free ( I am not sure if there is an obligation to make the included code part of the freely distributable sources). SMSQ/E is modular so adding an extra commercial package to it would be easy. It is less hard to remove part of it and that is something we have all discussed. The practicalities of someone writing, say, a new file manager with longer filename (oh no, not that again!) and then selling that as a commercial add on are something we want to discuss. We should be able to make this fit both models. -- 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
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote: This is a different issue. If your non-commercial developers don't want to work under the licence that is their problem, not yours. As a One small point. If ANY developer, commercial, private or otherwise, decides not to do work they might otherwise do for SMSQ, it is my problem, your problem, and a problem for everyone in the entire SMSQ-using community who is deprived of that contribution. I have done for the last six years. We have no commitment to non commercial developers because they are, by definition, not part of the commercial scene. Under this license, there are no commercial developers - everone has to do it for free. You have no commitment to any developer? I don't think you mean that - do you? I'm not criticising, just confused because the words don't say what I believe you were trying to say. Please could you restate this? Thanks Dave
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote: freely distributable sources). SMSQ/E is modular so adding an extra commercial package to it would be easy. It is less hard to remove part of it and that is something we have all discussed. The practicalities of someone writing, say, a new file manager with longer filename (oh no, not that again!) and then selling that as a commercial add on are something we want to discuss. We should be able to make this fit both models. I think this is the way most people would go. Obtain the sources, and use them to gain insight into SMSQ, then reproduce each modular section and release it under the GPL, until the entire OS has been replicated in a GPL'd version. As a half-way step to this, people can accept the distribution side of the license to receive the source, then produce new self-contained replacement modules which they can sell. Nothing in the license prevents someone from making replacement modules. Obviously this is against the intent of the license, but as the code was not submitted to the registrar, it is distributable outside of the original license, as long as the module contains no original SMSQ code and is therefore not a derivitive work But then, that would mean the license is encouraging people to behave in a way contrary to what was intended. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
and here the problems start. The people have already paid for SMSQ so the new reseller is practically only supposed to distribute upgrades and provide support. This appears even less interesting for potential resellers because they can hardly charge very much for an upgrade. Most upgrades to SMSQ/E have been provided free. The only exceptions were for the systems where there were colour driver implementations and where the actual version number changed. Jochen and I have done this without charging for anything except the postage for sending it out. this is reasonable - but it makes it even more clear that the license has a problem. Someone buys HW with SMSQ included, his vendor/original reseller goes out of business and now what. The user can't even get the free SMSQ upgrades for his machine. Surely no other reseller will be delighted to fill the gap and provide both upgrades and support for pp costs. Ironically, Wolfgang is forced by the license to compile the binaries for this obsolete platform. So market forces would dictate someone become a reseller, quickly sell a few binaries and quit beeing a reseller. If you are waiting for market forces then the whole thing would have died out years ago. I can count the number of new SMSQ/E users over the past two years on one hand. I have not had a single enquiry about buying it since we halved the price. Your license doesn't say anything about how long a reseller is expected to provide support, nor whatever you consider support. Why don't you reconsider the get support in exchange for paying binaries in favor of normal support contracts? Jochen and I have been supporting SMSQ/E for the last six years. I expect that, even if I stopped selling QL products now I will still get called an emailed and, believe or not, I would still try to help out. I fully believe the same goes for Jochen. Maybe your market forces would produce a shallower trader. I mostly share your opinion about market forces here, it was Wolfgang' idea I was replying to. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
- Original Message - From: Wolfgang Lenerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 10:10 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code On 18 May 2002, at 1:22, Jeremy Taffel wrote: Wolfgang, A lengthy response, please don't flame, I would appreciate a considered response. .snip I think that he has some valid points which you don't seem to have understood. Thanks.Why is it that I'm not supposed to have understood things when I just don't agree with the opinions expressed. Because instead of answering in a civil an unemotional way you get provoked into escalating the flame wars, and often don't address the legitimate (in their minds) concerns of some of those that ry to debate this. ...snip ..He therefore cannot guarantee support, or to fix problems. He helps where he can, and in the spirit of GNU etc, he makes the information available so that technically advanced users can help themselves. So he wants to program something, but not support it later on. Nice. That is not what I said. With the best will in the world, the key word here is guarantee. I know from personal experience that Richard, (and probably the others giving you grief on this list) provides exceptional support. You must know, however, how many platforms (and OS's) UQLX runs under, and any problems arising from unusual combinations of hardware and OS could take a long time for any individual to bottom out, especially if he hasn't got the access to that hardware. I imagine that similar guarantees are probably just as problematical with QPC given the variety of hardware and software drivers etc running Windows. Any such guarantees are essentially dishonest, and are only ever best efforts. That should be recognised, otherwise we should be asking questions like how quickly can we expect to get the bugs fixed? We don't because we are reasonable people. However some people when they read the licence interpret it literally. I was making a serious point and received an unwaranted (in my opinion) sarcastic glib response. This really is not necessary. . He cannot merely do his best, but he has to give an open-ended commitment to provide support -something that few if any software vendors would do. He isn't even allowed to provide effective support -emailing patches, assistance over the phone of how to hack a config file outlawed by the proposed licence. We are looking into the email aspect. Moreover, I think your comments very clearly outline one of the aspects I care about. He 'or anybody else) can send the source code to interested parties. If they can compile the source code, then they probabbly will only need minimal support, if any at all. However, the normal end user won't be able to compile it - but he would need support. UQLX is distributed as source, and in my experience most if not all Linux users are familiar with make-files. So lets see.. provided the developer provides the necessary compiler/cross-compiler and makefile(s) for the platform, he can freely distribute it as a set of source files. Sounds like open source to me. Only leaves the problem of how to get you to accept it into an official version (don't flame -see later comments). So he doesn't get access to the binaries in the first case - and won't need support either. The scheme as it stands now provides for both cases - you can't just let the binaries out in the open, have end users play around with it and them leave them without support. We are still waiting on this list for a definition of support. It seems to be absolutely essental, but totally undefined! It seems, however to underpin most of your defence of the approach being taken. Furthermore having expended much time and effort -and potentially money if he has to buy hardware, or technical consultancy to enable him to provide the support, you can pull the plug at any time by tearing the licence up . That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? But what's to stop you? I think that part of your role is to provide the reassurance that you are aiming to act in an inclusive manner, not exclusive; also to provide objective criteria for inclusion of new offerings. e.g. coding style, completeness, compatibility, maintainability, documentation, personality (just kidding - but without any of the other information how do we know what criteria will be used?). It is very clear to me that you accept input from some people on this list (Tim Swenson, for example) extremely civilly, and do actually take some of their comments on board. Others, you seem to dismiss out of hand, and none too politely. Perhaps you have a past history of disagreement with those characters; I know they can be rather blunt, but I can't say that I blame them for getting paranoid. Oh? What wider audience? DO you really mean that letting an unsupported OS float around the shareware scenen would make for a wider audience? An open source operating system
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Zidlicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Most upgrades to SMSQ/E have been provided free. The only exceptions were for the systems where there were colour driver implementations and where the actual version number changed. Jochen and I have done this without charging for anything except the postage for sending it out. this is reasonable - but it makes it even more clear that the license has a problem. Someone buys HW with SMSQ included, his vendor/original reseller goes out of business and now what. The user can't even get the free SMSQ upgrades for his machine. Surely no other reseller will be delighted to fill the gap and provide both upgrades and support for pp costs. Ironically, Wolfgang is forced by the license to compile the binaries for this obsolete platform. Actually that is exactly what happens. I provide upgrades at cost for the Qubide. And that is what would happen in the case you propose. You are either very mistrustful or like to pick holes in things. -- 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
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dexter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote: This is a different issue. If your non-commercial developers don't want to work under the licence that is their problem, not yours. As a One small point. If ANY developer, commercial, private or otherwise, decides not to do work they might otherwise do for SMSQ, it is my problem, your problem, and a problem for everyone in the entire SMSQ-using community who is deprived of that contribution. Yes but it is not your concern as a reseller. I agree that we do not want to lose any contribution but some people will not contribute because they have already fixed an attitude which is against what we are doing. This has always been the way of things. I have done for the last six years. We have no commitment to non commercial developers because they are, by definition, not part of the commercial scene. Under this license, there are no commercial developers - everone has to do it for free. You have no commitment to any developer? I don't think you mean that - do you? The licence does not exclude a developer writing some code that can be added to SMSQ/E as a module and which can be charged for as far as I know. -- 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-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi Wolfgang, *** Distribution of executables for free was *not* forbidden in the first official statement! This has changed and caused severe implications on the availability of non-commercial work. *** I must take the blame for that - it was always INTENDED that the binaries were not to be distributed other than through the resellers. I don't blame you for tolerating distribution of SMSQ/E executables for free in the first statement. This is what Tony Tebby would have allowed us! The public ought to know it, even if it was published unintended. Note the 'other than through the resellers' part of the sentence Peter. He is talking about upgrades as you well know. -- 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
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood replied to something I said: I think this is the way most people would go. Obtain the sources, and use them to gain insight into SMSQ, then reproduce each modular section and release it under the GPL, until the entire OS has been replicated in a GPL'd version. As a half-way step to this, people can accept the distribution side of the license to receive the source, then produce new self-contained replacement modules which they can sell. Nothing in the license prevents someone from making replacement modules. Obviously this is against the intent of the license, but as the code was not submitted to the registrar, it is distributable outside of the original license, as long as the module contains no original SMSQ code and is therefore not a derivitive work Actually no. We have nothing against commercial extensions to the O/S, in fact we would love it to happen. We just want the main code to be uniform as I keep saying. I don't really like patches but you can LRESPR code into SMSQ/E and you can add your own modules. If we can sell these modules we would be very happy to do it and if the people want to give them away the same applies. Roy, you use phrases like commercial extensions, add your own modules etc. I am not talking about that, and know that can happen in a healthy way under this license. What I am talking about is *replacing* modules, using the source to create/reverse engineer an Open Source version of SMSQ. At what point does work product stop being derivitive code and start being clean, unlicensed code? Basically, any module that doesn't include any original SMSQ code fits that requirement. The task of rewriting an OS is not trivial, but with the source, it's certainly a lot easier. The point is that people can write new modules that carry out *existing* module functionality, and distribute those, which actually increases the fragmentation of SMSQ in a way that the registrar is unable to control, because they would have no legal basis to do so. Even TT can't stop people writing replacement sections of SMSQ. It's human nature - I am certain beyond all doubt that there will be a thriving development scene for SMSQ, and 90% of it will be beyond the reach and control of the registrar. It would be in the majority of developer's interest NOT to contribute their efforts, but to simply pad out what is required and do a fee-based (not commercial, but fee-based, as in resellers are not doing this commercially, but fee-based, think about it ;) Finally, I would like to say, as a moderate critic, that if you doubt my intentions, I would like you to consider my thinking for a brief moment. One who truly cares about the future of the scene will care greatly about what form this license takes. Those who do not care, or to whom the license is irrelevant, will remain silent. If I were a less honourable person, I would not point out the obvious flaws and weaknesses, or jump through the holes. I would leave them as wide open as possible and wait until they're adopted. People may be critical, but that is a positive thing if someone's motives are to improve the license for everyone's sake. It's when a person tries to change the license for their own benefit, or stays mysteriously quiet that you have to worry. Yours constructively Dave
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote: Yes but it is not your concern as a reseller. I agree that we do not want to lose any contribution but some people will not contribute because they have already fixed an attitude which is against what we are doing. This has always been the way of things. Criticism of this license is not criticism of you, or Jochen, or anyone else involved in drafting it. It is a work which you hopefully consider to be a work in progress. If you feel it should stand as it is, that's ok. If it is adopted as is, people will walk elephants through the holes - let's close those holes and make the letter match the intent? The licence does not exclude a developer writing some code that can be added to SMSQ/E as a module and which can be charged for as far as I know. The license only specifies one mechanism for having code added to the official SMSQ tree - to surrender the right to charge for it, remove it, etc. If someone wishes to charge for a module, they are not given an avenue to do so under the current wording, unless they keep their module separate from the SMSQ binary distribution, which ensures marginal adoption at best, and certainly encourages commercial developers to further fragment the code base. [snip large paragraph about why I know this is true from personal experience] [snip rest of my latest comments, for being philosophical and not really pertinant to the issue at hand] And maybe other people might like to exercise a little self-censorship too, in the hope that we may lift this vital discussion up to a higher level, where good things happen? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 18 May 2002, at 12:13, Richard Zidlicky wrote: (...) so don't comment private correspondence and answer the questions. So rephrase the questions without reference to private correspondence. Previously you asked me to voice my concerns publicaly so what do you actually want? What makes you think I changed my mind? I could read the disassembly before you had the idea that this is illegal. And the fact that I had this idea now changes that? As are all licences. nonsense. Some licenses state a minimal set of rights that can't be revoked. Other contain enough guarantees regarding fair use of the code that I won't care if some future version of the license would turn into Microsoft shared source license. Your license doesn't qualify either way. Nonsense. So yo revoke the passage that contains irrrevocable rights... (...) Rubbish. You can always refuse to buy an upgrade if you don't want it. not if it comes bundled with important bugfixes. Do you want to maintain bugfix releases of old versions? What kind of an argumlent is this? If the bugfixes are sufficient reason to buy an upgrade, buy it for the bugfixes and tgetthe new features thrown in for free - or do you mean that you would complain if you also had new features? Right - so the situation until now was very inconvenient because TT, who wrote SMSQ/E also wrote the licence? the situation was inconvenient because TT had limited resources. You are on the best way to waste even more resources by the means of licensing braindamage. The license wasn't a big concern as long as all code was copyright TT, now that you are going to get bogged down by a variety of separate licensing agreements it is a very big concern. There are no separate licence agreemnts - the licence stays as it is. There is no difference between the free and non free developper - all go throught the registrar and are included in the code, or not, as the case may be. of course, there is only the difference between those who have a special agreement with the registrar and those fools who haven't. the fools are those who think that I have special agreemnts with anyone. I know that you are highly cooperative wrt special agreements Nice. Which ones are you referring to? but do you think this is a good thing for SMSQ? Seriously, what is the license worth if everyone will have his special agreement? Same point. If, as you state, the case is that Peter paid horrendous amounts of money to get some specific work done, and that work wasn't done, then I'd say he has a good case to get his money back. Does he also have a good case to actually get the features implemented? Why should he more or less now than earlier? Who would be responsible for that? Peter might have respondend himself would you have kept the cc ql-developpers (I am adding it again). I've always used this list. I see no reason to change. Sorry to say but this is just racketeering. Are you accusing me of racketeering Peter Graf? If not me, then whom? you should have taken the past development (for which you are not directly responsible of course) and Peter's concerns into account - it is important part of preconditions when considering a new license. 1 - Answer the question about the rackettering. 2 - I see no reason why I should have taken into account past developments for anybody. If anybody has an issue with the way developments were done in the past, I'd suggest they take it up with TT. Can you understand that we are now talking about the future? How can a new (and as yet nion existing) licence cover software in the past? Unless you want to guarantee the Q40 users and Peter that : - the minimal features on the Q40/Q60 will work - Q40/Q60 will be further supported by SMSQ, nonregarding whether the now official resellers are willing or able to futher support it. Why should I guarantee anyything to anybody? Are you trying to make me responsible for the code, writing it, maintaining it, fixing bugs? Boy, what a lack of understanding of the licence and the office of the registrar. than I will wholeheartedly accuse *you* of racketeering. Then go look up racketeering in the dictioanry. I'm still willing to believe that you don't know what you're talking about. In case you didn't notice, the whole paragraph (and the whole preceeding text) was conditionalised by the sentence Wolfgang you are welcome to give us your *guarantees* that I am wrong. Again who are you to request a guarantee from me? So here is your 2nd chance, sincererly I would love to be proven wrong. Oh thanks, I don't need second chances from teh likes of you. I'll take the first chance I already have and try to make something out of SMSQ/E. Ususally I would not hold *you* responsible for this as Peter and me would do the few fixes myself, however your license does make it impossible
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 7:50, Dexter wrote: As a developer, one would expect to be kept up-to-date with the latest sources automatically. To expect developers to do so by mail, at their own expense, when there are instant methods available that incur no expense and enhance communication between the various developers is indeed a needless restriction. I'm think about a way to make things easier. In Eindhoven, it was agreed not to let the sources be put onto Websites, to retain some semblance of control over them, because we don't want too many shareware sources to float around. If then you allow in distribution via E-mail, well yo know how easy it is to set up a website that sends yo the sources via email as soon as you make the request on the web page - and hey presto, you cincumvented the non dtsiribution over a website interdiction... Peter Graf and I do not exactly see eye to eye. We have agreed to disagree when it comes to developing hardware for the Qx0. However, I must stand up 100% in support for him. The resellers do not wish to sell a Qx0 version of SMSQ. The only way for them to supply Qx0 in this situation is to become resellers themselves. This is a distraction from what they're trying to do. Also, they may not be qualified, or may consider other development tasks more pressing, than supporting SMSQ users. Now, let's see. if I buy a Q40/Q60 today, this comes with SMSQE. So the person selling it (dd?) is a reseller. Why not simply continue? To whom will a buyer of the software/hardware turn, anyway? To the person they bought the set from! If I end up handling hardware sales, would I have to become an SMSQ reseller? I'm not qualified. But if the resellers declined to offer the ZYXABC version of SMSQ (as they have done with the Qx0) I would have no choice but to find someone who can do it, and add those support costs to the cost of the product. Notwithstanding that I would have to keep requesting and paying for current sources just to stay in tune. You don'y pay for sources. You pay everytime you sell the binaries. Even as a hardware seller, you lust give support for your product, mluist you not? If you sell the hardware/software combo, you are just as responsible as if selling the softwarre separately. Where will the people get the software from, if not from the ahrdware seller initially? You would have this responsibility to your users, as a hardware seller, even if the OS was free. I think any reseller should be required to provide all versions of SMSQ or none at all. I don't agree. it's a free world. Anyway, the situation is not a happy one. There are two main hardware developers who would need to include SMSQ with a new product. DD, and the Goldfire outfit. DD appears to be sidelined out of SMSQ, Why? Have they even asked to become resellers? Not to my knowledge. and if I were selling Goldfires I would be sidelined too, just because of the development hurdles being thrown down before me. Exactly what development hurdles are these? in what way does the licence make the development more difficulut for you? On the contray, you have access to the sources, now! Now, what is the objective of this license? To attempt to let thoise interested have a look at the sources, and, if they want, do something with them. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 18 May 2002, at 1:22, Jeremy Taffel wrote: Wolfgang, I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with Richard's comments on the proposed licence. I'm not cheesed off by the reply. I'm cheesed off when reference is made to private correspondence. I think that he has some valid points which you don't seem to have understood. Thanks.Why is it that I'm not supposed to have understood things when I just don't agree with the opinions expressed. Think of it this way: Richard has done a good job with UQLX and has it working on may flavours of Unix, on different platforms and processors. I don't doubt that. It would benefit the community to SMSQ to have it supported by UQLX, and have Richard's Unixy extensions within it as he has already done for JS and Minerva. However, he does not have continous access to all those platforms, and definitely not all the combinations of interface cards, displays etc they come with. He therefore cannot guarantee support, or to fix problems. He helps where he can, and in the spirit of GNU etc, he makes the information available so that technically advanced users can help themselves. In the spirit of the GNU licence says it all - the proposed licence isn't in that spirit. So he wants to program something, but not support it later on. Nice. Under the current proposed licence, he cannot operate in this reasonable way. Says he. He cannot merely do his best, but he has to give an open-ended commitment to provide support -something that few if any software vendors would do. He isn't even allowed to provide effective support -emailing patches, assistance over the phone of how to hack a config file outlawed by the proposed licence. We are looking into the email aspect. Moreover, I think your comments very clearly outline one of the aspects I care about. He 'or anybody else) can send the source code to interested parties. If they can compile the source code, then they probabbly will only need minimal support, if any at all. However, the normal end user won't be able to compile it - but he would need support. So he doesn't get access to the binaries in the first case - and won't need support either. The scheme as it stands now provides for both cases - you can't just let the binaries out in the open, have end users play around with it and them leave them without support. Furthermore having expended much time and effort -and potentially money if he has to buy hardware, or technical consultancy to enable him to provide the support, you can pull the plug at any time by tearing the licence up. That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? This is not the way to encourage the few souls who are both willing and capable of making SMSQ available and useful to a wider audience to harness their talents to our mutual benefit. Oh? What wider audience? DO you really mean that letting an unsupported OS float around the shareware scenen would make for a wider audience? I really do urge you to rethink this. Conversely, I would be interested to know how you intend to police the licence; it seems to me to be impossible, so perhaps Richard and others like him need not worry. Policing the licence? We'll see - i don't really foresee that this would be much of an option, apart from telling the people involved and putting them to public opprobium here. On the other hand, if I do notice something illegal going on, I might just sue - here in France. p.s. Most unix distributions include an emulators package these days. Think how many extra users we might end up with (or ex-users that return) if we could get them to add UQLX +SMSQ etc into that package? I know exactly how many : none. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 7:18, Dave Walker wrote: Timothy, When I got SMSQ/E from Jochen, I got: a) A generic SMSQ/E User Guide (38 pages) that was not machine specific b) Custom supplement pages for each hardware environment I bought (typically 6-10 pages) Same here when I got my Q60. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 18 May 2002, at 12:40, Richard Zidlicky wrote: There is nothing in the license that would guarantee me any of my changes will get back into official SMSQ. That is true. On the contrary, the registrar has the right to oinclude/exclude any code. There is nothing in the license to guarantee me that official or inofficial binaries of SMSQ will be available. Of course not. On the contratry - there should ne no inofficial versions, at least none that I want to know about. than the license is very badly engineered. It enforces discipline by rather brute methods that will only hurt people who would like to help and leaves too many important points wide open. I have proposed alternatives to Wolfgang, something like this: you are allowed to do anything with this code as long as - you accept this copyright - you leave this copyright message intact and don't place any additional restrictions on the code - you don't sell this source or anything derived from this source, including binaries - you don't branch the code. licensing for commercial purposes is available under following conditions: ... ... Forgetting, of course: you may not distribute the binaries. But then, of course, this isn't to your liking any more, is it? If discipline is all you want than this should do quite well and still leave sufficient room for commercial development. The formulation above may seem a bit naive - it is. We aren't expecting to deal with criminals here, are we? Well of course we are, aren't we? racketeers, all! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 18 May 2002, at 22:08, Timothy Swenson wrote: > > It would be better to leave out stating who the official distributors are > in this Official Statement, and put it in a separate document. It would be > kind of like putting in the name of the Officers in a set of By-Laws, as > the names will change over time, and the By-Laws probably will not. yes of course, you are entirely right -dave already pointed this out before. I just wanted to make clear who the reseller are up to now - else I would again be accused of hiding things, you know... > > >4/ The registrar, i.e. me, will maintain > >official distributions of SMSQ/E, in binary and > >source code form, one for each machine on which > >SMSQ/E may run. > > I would recommend defining the terms "Registrar" (but not as "me") and > "Distributor/Reseller". Just to fully clarify who they are and what they do. yes! > I understand the total avoidance of any one making money off of the source > code for SMSQ/E, but I feel not allowing charges for media a bit strict. A > simple workaround would be to send the person a blank CD or other disk and > some IRC's. I am assuming that IRC's are not considered a form of > currency. If your local Post Office does not know that an IRC is, then > talk directly to the Post Master for that Office. There is no reason for a > Postal Employee to not know their job. I spent 8.5 years as a federal > employee, so I know the power of the "chain of command". Ok, how does a max of 3 IRC + blank media strike you? > I really don't understand not allowing distribution via anything other than > sneaker-net. What would be the consequences of the Registrar, putting the > Official Distribution Source Code of SMSQ/E on a web server? Simple: I would have to do it. This takes much time, money and effort for what will finally be only a few people who will want the sources. > It could be > arranged that the requester must give their name and address before getting > the Source Code. As someone that is about 5,000 miles from the Registrar, > mail can take an awfully long time. Plus, someone like Thierry, sitting on > a French Naval ship in the Persian Gulf, mail is very slow to come. As a > veteran I try to keep fellow service members in mind. Yes, thzt is indeed a concern. > With all due respect, I don't think the above is physically possible. If I > make a change to the SMSQ/E scheduler, I don't think that I can compile it > and distribute it without including SMSQ/E (since this is what I have > changed). If I can make a change and distribute it without any original > SMSQ/E code, then I'm not actually modifying SMSQ/E and don't fall under > this "license". I think this statement needs to be looked at again. in other words, if you make a change in SMSQE, you can't distribute the binaries therefor. That's what it says, and that is what is intended. If you lake a change other than in the source code (e.g. a patch) then of course the luicence doesn't apply to you, I mean why should it?. > (snip - support) > If we are strict in allowing only certified resellers to distributing > SMSQ/E, I want to know what bang do I get for the buck. I have found that > the QL community is great in helping each other out and have received more > "support" from other QLers that from a reseller. > > I firmly believe that QL resellers have a right to exist and I'm happy to > see them there (I'm glad I'm out of arms reach in case any one of them > takes this the wrong way). But, if we are to only allow resellers to > distribute SMSQ/E in binary form, BECAUSE they provide support, I think we > really need to define what this support is. If we can define the support, > great. If we can't define the support, then we are in trouble. yes, you are right - so let's think about this. Comments, anyone? > Wolfgang, I know that you've taken a lot of flack for this license. I don't mind the flak, provided I'm allowed to shoot back from time to time when the argument get beyond the polite. > I hope > that no one has made the feedback too personal. I have looked over the > license as much as one programmer would look over another programmer's > code, looking for bugs and other problems. I appreciate your taking the > time and effort to contribute to the QL community. Hey, your comments are very welcome! (I mean that!) The only requirement I have is that the discussion remains polite. Why do you think I make the licence projetcs available here, if not for you to comment? > Most of us have put a lot of time and effort in to the QL and it's > community and we all can take some of this a bit personally. In fact, you > may be feeling a bit like George Lucas when hearing feedback about Jar Jar > Binks :-). Oh you mean, the licence isn't one of my better efforts... :-) Agreed! > And one final question, if the source code is to be released for free, what > about the Reference Guide. Is
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 16:40, Richard Zidlicky wrote: unfortunately your inconvenience is only the smaller problem. The bigger one - what happens if you are fed up and go out of business? There are perhaps 100s of users with your hardware without any reseller, so to get SMSQ updates they would have to become their own resellers. Of course people will be wary to buy your HW in first place unless they know for sure they will not be locked out like that. Well, believers in free market forces unite. If there still is a market, then somebody else will step in. Moreover, if the seller is not there any more, who will sort you the user's hardware problem? That's an even greater risk. So, should be still trell people not to buy any more hardware because of that? Surely this is not the intention of anyone? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 20 May 2002, at 1:43, ZN wrote: OK, I've been reading the licence discussion for quite a while and I find it does make sense for a world where the following is clearly defined that: 1) A generic SMSQ core, common to ALL platforms (*) 2) SMSQ extensions, or more precisely, additions or changes to the core, start as a submissions to the registrar, and become, if accepted, a part of the next official core issue if aproved. 3) Add-ons, i.e. is everything that goes 'on top' of SMSQ but is not part of the core, and is probably speciffic to a particular platform. Oh great, somebody actually understands what we're trying to achieve. [Digression: (*) this 'common to all platforms' is a bit of an idealist view, a discussion for some other time] Yes, yes and yes! This may seem like an odd argument, but it is paramount for the issue of developement, support, distribution - not to mention that a clear definition of the above three is (or should be!) one of the main criteria used by the registrar to decide what becomes a part of SMSQ and what does not. If the above were true, whoever wants to have SMSQ on a different platform, would not strictly need to distribute the binary, but could instead point the users to one of the distributors, and offer the necessary add-ons to the core and a way to link everything, to make it work on that platform, removing the platform speciffic parts from under the coverage of the licence, and regulating the distribution and support for said as they see fit. true - however, it would be easier to distribute, as a reseller, one patched version that runs right away on the new machine. After all, I presume the new users buy a machine from you- and they will come back to you for support. Will the additional 10 EUR you charge for TT's work really be that much more of an imposition? In case a developer wants to do something with the core to enable new functionality, they would be able to get the official source under the conditions stipulated in the licence, see what and how would need changes, implement betas and have them distributed under the conditions of the licence (which I do find somewhat restrictive but not impossible), and eventually, propose their inclusion into the official generic core. Provided the registrar was convinced the proposed was or could be beneficial to everyone (**), and not only everyone - let's definbe everyone as meaining veryone on that machine. For example, the Q60 has a LED port. Th. Godefroy wrote some software to use it. Suppose he porposed that for inclusion iin the OS (I have NO idea whether he would or not, I haven't discussed this with him, it's just an example). Why should I not allow it in, even though it would profit only Q60 users? Likewise, QPC has the DOS device. Why shouldn't that be part of the OS inSMSQ/E, even though only QPC would profit from it. I WOULD like to see developments that profit all versions of all machines. it would then be included into the next official core, at which point the developer can use that to implement speciffic add-ons of their own, again handled outside of the core licence. yes! [Digression: (**) a mechanism should be in place for the registrar to distribute certain beta versions simply because he would be in the best position to know the key developers for speciffic cases where a proposed change may have wide impact] true! The problem is, this is not the actual situation. Instead, we have SMSQ which has relatively monolitic parts some of which may be essential for one group and at the same time of no interest whatsoever for another. Because of the absurd idea that every platform or flavour thereof should have it's own SMSQ version, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to write a licence agreement which would satisfy everyone to an acceptable degree. Arguments like 'I paid for a feature and why should I submit it and have anyone but me benefit from it (financially)' are forever going to be oposed to 'I don't want to pay for anything because I only do things for free', and that's only the benign tip of the iceberg. We could collectively come up with a myriad scenarios in which any given wording of the licence would not work. I sincerely hope that not even an attempt will be made to cater for everything!!! no. What I would be doing to break this deadlock, is the following: get the current official source under the current licence. Have a good long look at it and figure out how to make a generic core from it. Then propose THAT to the registrar. Sounds like a lot of work for little gains? The way I see it, this may indeed be true in the short run. But if it's not ultimately done, we'll soon all be throwing in the towel because without this and a clear division what falls under the licence and what does not, i.e. without a clear picture of what SMSQ is and what it can grow into, the best we can hope for is for a situation where 'read TTs code'
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 17:16, Peter Graf wrote: Just imagine today's license situation had already existed when Q40 hardware was finished. Not the slightest chance to have SMSQ/E on Q40. Untrue. And if TT had decided to stop development altogehthern, the chance would have been even less. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 13:52, James Hunkins wrote: I am sorry to say that I am very, very disappointed. You are not alone. (snip) I recently just joined this email list because I was hoping to get some help on some implementation problems that I am having with the QDT project. Sorry, I must have missed your request. What was it? Instead I have been getting this stream of emails that, to be very blunt, sounds like a lot on non-productive whining. The alternative would have been to say: Here , this is the licence, you have no chance to discuss it, that's it. I perfer to leave it open for discussion. I will continue to work on QDT. I made a decision a long time ago that it will require SMSQ/E to run as there are some major pieces that I need from SMSQ/E to to it properly without having to write a tremendous amount of additional code. I would hope that everyone can come to an agreement about this license that will support SMSQ/E for all systems currently available which will allow QDT to also run on them. What do you need? I hope that this didn't come over too bluntly, but I have to deal with disagreements much larger than this everyday in my 'real' job and we get them resolved, without resorting to the kind of stuff that I have been reading for the last couple of days. The difference here is that there is no real need for people to get to accept compromises. Everybod can just walk away from the project if they want to. I really enjoy working on my system and my development of QDT. So, please guys, just find a way to resolve this and get on with it. Never fear - whatever happens, you can at leastbe pretty sure o something: SMSQ/E will be available, in one form or another, in the future... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
- Original Message - From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 11:33 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code I agree entirely with Bill, having spent many thousands of pounds running several businesses with QLs and SMSQ/E, including Q40. We stopped because of the lack of development keeping pace with the market. I was delighted when SMSQ/E was made open source, and looked forward to a revival in QL fortunes, alas, this is not so, its not to be open source, which is more to do with vested interests trying to 'grab the ball', than with what will be best for QL users, Not true really. The source is open. You can get it and read it and change it. All we are trying to do is to ensure that released version have been properly tested, are stable and will work with existing software as best we can. This is in the interests of QL users I feel. I do not agree, the QL has progressed to where it is by tinkerers playing about with it, and then making their efforts available, with or without charge, to the community. No other software carries these restrictions, and now that suspicion has entered the debate, it is not going to leave in a hurry. Here in Scotland we have a saying He who pays the piper calls the tune., the END USER pays the piper. and th QL. I may say that if TT had provided the support promised to Qubide, Q40 and SMSQ/E, we may have still been running 8 QLs full time, and spending a goodly sum each year with traders, to TTs benefit. I don't really see what TT had to do with the Qubide but the rumours about what was about to appear spread very fast. When I bought SMSQ, Qubides, etc. We were told Colour Drivers are being written, along with other refinements, memory, CD support etc. This encouraged the purchase of Auroras, etc ,etc. Not only to support development, but in anticipation of machines that could live in a modern world. Whatever reasons TT had for not fulfilling his agreement to supply these for qubides, he has cut off his nose to spite his face, as the loss in serious user base was substantial, better he had done the work and quibled later. The result being we feel, as END USERS badly let down and, not to put to fine a point on it, conned. I, as a user, only see that TT at last has given access to code, that is long overdue( never mind copyrights, what about my rights, I have paid good money on the promise of continuing development. I feel badly treated in this.) Why so ? There was continued development for a long time. The user base has fallen a lot and TT can no longer afford to support it. To be truthful the remaining traders can no longer afford to support it but we do because we have made many friends over the years and won't be letting them down. What srious development, the Q40, which you promised all the above were just round the corner, still waiting. Roy, I sympathise with you trying to exist in a shrinking market, indeed I think we have supported you and Tony in any way we could. But you have to ask why a shrinking user base, not so Linux, in fact the oposite is the case. Lessons should be learned, if its not to late. and should have happened years ago. Now the pack are fighting over the bones. At the end of the day it is we users who decide to continue with support for the QL, or to go elsewhere and let the predators starve to death. I don't think any one is being a predator here. There is no money being made on SMSQ/E. Money is not the question, it is freedom to use the system as the Users see fit. Not as a self appointed commitee would like to legislate Whats wrong with the Linux setup, it works. SMSQ would work as well, even if there were a couple of versions, that at least adds competition to differant systems and leads to healthy development. See my previous comments on that. We are too small a community and have too few software writers for different flavours of SMSQ/E to co-exist. If we have some things that will only run on one version and some that will only run on another we will lose the few users we have left. WHY are we a small community, computing grows by leaps and bounds. It is a good platform plagued by people, Sinclair, Sugar, and others. Sounds like self interest to me regards Mike -- 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
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: 4. Distribution of SMSQ/E executables for free was forbidden. This changes everything. It shows other passages of the license in a different light. The combination now means, that non-commercial contributors no longer get any rights from this license, except the revocable right to see a vanishing snapshot of the code (***). There is no difference betwwen càmmerecial and no commercial developpers in this licence. I just stated they no longer get any rights from this license, except the revocable right to see a vanishing snapshot of the code. Which is true. The situation for Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E: Tony Tebby was our only *commercial* developer. for OS work, yes. Yes. I said SMSQ/E which is an OS. What else are you talking about? These non-commercial authors would like to participate in development! For example, there are developers interested to implement 128 MB RAM support, harddisk improvements (4 GB), slaveblock solution, cache handling, better MMU usage, network support, 68k FPU support for SMSQ/E and so on. The ONLY REASON why they can NOT do do the work for SMSQ/E is this license, which locks them out. This is simply not true. This is simply true. ARE YOU SAYING WE WOULD NOT WORK, e.g. under an OpenSource license ??? The ONLY reason they do not work under this licence is THAT THEY DON4T WANT TO work under this licence. Do I bid their wrists? Do I threaten them with death ? Do I stop them from working with this code? No, they have decided that this licence is not aceptable for them. Fine. But DON'T say that they CAN'T work under this luicence. They CAN WORK only if they agree their executables are lost, abused, or sold for unknown money, at conditions that may change anytime. That's what the license allows. A GREAT OPPORTUNITY :-(( If a contribution is accepted by the registrar, the license leaves completely open what will happen to the executable code of a contribution. No it doesn't - if it falls within the binaries, it falls within the scope of the licence. Of course it does. I repeat for you: The license allows everything to happen to the executables, including complete loss, sales for unknown money, no sales at all, loss for some platforms only, virtually everything that an author needs to know. An author can only KNOW what will happen it if he makes separate agreements with resellers outside this license. Sure your commercial author already has this agreements with your resellers. All this also makes the rights concerning test versions completely void. Your executable code may be lost or abused, as soon as it is accepted. Yes, I often abuse code. Wolfgang, I was not personal. I only criticise this socalled license. I'm sure your decisions about inclusions of code into the source tree will work allright. I was not talking about the source tree, or code generation, but about *availabilty* of executables. If my fears about the results of this license are just paranoia, why not include rights for the non-commercial developers? Why have two sets of rights? Haven't said two sets of rights. If you want rights for the non-commercial developers simply include them. Or, maybe easier, use an existing wellknown license that takes care of all this. And let us start working. Peter
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Wolfgang wrote: Timothy, When I got SMSQ/E from Jochen, I got: a) A generic SMSQ/E User Guide (38 pages) that was not machine specific b) Custom supplement pages for each hardware environment I bought (typically 6-10 pages) Same here when I got my Q60. And more. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: everybody was invited. No. Fact remains: This meeting was in the absence of Tony Tebby (who had the SMSQ/E rights), me (sick), DD Systems (not invited), or representatives of OpenSource development (vacation). Fine. Develop it. Get it accepted as an authorised version. Sell it for 10 Euros or give it away for free. Just pay TT 10 Euros for each one sold. No problem. Unfortunately the license doesn't say that. Can I have this statement, without additions that make it void, from the registrar, and guarantees it won't change in the future ??? Why should it change? We're having difficulty getting it done in the first place! I have asked a simple question, no answer. OK I make it even simpler: Can I have Roy's above statement, without additions that make it void, from you ??? A large problem would still remain: My *person* is no guaranty to non-commercial developers. I can get sick, or whatever. Their rights should be in the *license*. If they are not, I can hardly expect them to work for Qx0 SMSQ/E. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: Just imagine today's license situation had already existed when Q40 hardware was finished. Not the slightest chance to have SMSQ/E on Q40. Untrue. Rubbish. None of the guys who wrote operating systems for Q40 would ever do the same under this socalled license. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I do not agree, the QL has progressed to where it is by tinkerers playing about with it, and then making their efforts available, with or without charge, to the community. No other software carries these restrictions, and now that suspicion has entered the debate, it is not going to leave in a hurry. Here in Scotland we have a saying He who pays the piper calls the tune., the END USER pays the piper. Well that is not entirely supported by the real facts. True there have been quite a few nice applications and a lot of free software which had no front end and which was of no use to anyone except those who were able to write this for themselves. The bulk of the work was done by solid commercial programmers who have gradually left the scene because there was not enough sales to make their efforts worthwhile. I don't really understand the 'suspicion' thread of all of this. and th QL. I may say that if TT had provided the support promised to Qubide, Q40 and SMSQ/E, we may have still been running 8 QLs full time, and spending a goodly sum each year with traders, to TTs benefit. I don't really see what TT had to do with the Qubide but the rumours about what was about to appear spread very fast. When I bought SMSQ, Qubides, etc. We were told Colour Drivers are being written, along with other refinements, memory, CD support etc. This encouraged the purchase of Auroras, etc ,etc. Not only to support development, but in anticipation of machines that could live in a modern world. Whatever reasons TT had for not fulfilling his agreement to supply these for qubides, he has cut off his nose to spite his face, as the loss in serious user base was substantial, better he had done the work and quibled later. The result being we feel, as END USERS badly let down and, not to put to fine a point on it, conned. OK TT had no hand in the Qubide. The design was by Nasta, the sales by Qubbesoft and the software by Phil Borman so lets leave that out of the discussion. There was some talk of colour drivers by Qubbesoft. As far as I know TT claims that he had never committed to write them. All of TT's work has been commercial. If he was paid he did the job. He also put in many hours into support, mostly unpaid. QLCF, the French user group, paid for the colour drivers for the QXL. QPC2 users paid for the colour drivers for that when they upgraded and Peter claims to have paid for the colour drivers for the Q 40 etc. (I have no direct evidence of this but I do not disbelieve it). TT did what was asked of him over and beyond the amount of money he was paid to do it so all this accusation is as misinformed as it is pointless. The problem with the QL is not in the lack of software support but the physical limitations of the hardware itself. If you want to compare the system with a PC you have to accept that the whole of the PC market is geared up to a different standard and is driven by wholly different forces. A 15MHz, 4Mb QL with a SGC is never going to compete with a 1.6GHz 512Mb P4. We do not have the resources to keep up and the user base was already to small to do so in the mid nineties. On the whole we keep going because we enjoy playing around with the system and because it is a platform we have chosen to support. I am about to go to the S show. I will sell nothing there. I go because of a commitment to The US users to be there and it will cost me around £ 600 to do this. Jochen and I combine it with a short holiday to ease the cost but we would not be going if there was no show. This is commitment. SNIP What srious development, the Q40, which you promised all the above were just round the corner, still waiting. The Q40 is still being developed. I gave up on it because I, like many others, fell out with Peter Graf. I wish them well of it but it is a hobbyists market and it always will be. Roy, I sympathise with you trying to exist in a shrinking market, indeed I think we have supported you and Tony in any way we could. But you have to ask why a shrinking user base, not so Linux, in fact the oposite is the case. Lessons should be learned, if its not to late. Again LINUX is running on standard PC parts. We are running on specialist parts which cost too much because they are manufactured in too small quantities and we have too few programmers who are willing to do anything about it. SNIP I don't think any one is being a predator here. There is no money being made on SMSQ/E. Money is not the question, it is freedom to use the system as the Users see fit. Not as a self appointed commitee would like to legislate No money is everything to do it. I have a nine to five, five day a week job and a young family. I spend a lot of time writing for the magazine, going to shows and doing support for the QL. Just recently I have spent hours each night answering people who choose to attack the system as it is. WHY are we a small community, computing grows by leaps and bounds. It is a good
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message 005a01c1ff8d$3d771310$b25d86d9@macnamark39uau, Mike MacNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Where is Quantas input in this matter, I thought they contributed to the development of SMSQ. Why are they not distributing an official version, and as members will no doubt want to help develop SMSQ, they would be well suited to handling this. Quanta have never contributed to the development of SMSQ/E -- 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-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I guess the point I was trying to make was that the 38 page guide was no where near comprehensive enough to document a full OS. I'm sure that it assumed that the user was already familiar with QDOS. The Gold Card/TKII manual was a little more in depth, as it only covered some extensions to the OS. The original poster said something about a printed handbook for SMSQ/E and I would expect a little more than a 38 page guide that barely covers the topics. This is a little bit more revealing than the comment you originally made. I gave with each Q 40 I sold (and the US ones were mostly sent out by TF but I am sure he also sent the documentation too) all of the documentation I could lay my hands on. A few people (three) bought Q 40s with no prior knowledge of the QL or SMSQ/E I spent a bit of time with them getting them up and running both in person at my house and on the phone / Internet. There was no poster just an ad in QL Today and you received documentation on the hardware too. You do know about TK II and I do agree that the state of the SMSQ/E documentation is really just an upgrade notice but none of us have the resources to do anything else. At the end of the day we did our best and we were there to support you as we have been for all users over the years. Yes it was buggy and it still is. We all tried to get it fixed and make it better but TT was the only person available to do that. If we all stop this argument and get on with it maybe we could make it better. -- 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
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 12:39:22PM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: On 19 May 2002, at 16:40, Richard Zidlicky wrote: unfortunately your inconvenience is only the smaller problem. The bigger one - what happens if you are fed up and go out of business? There are perhaps 100s of users with your hardware without any reseller, so to get SMSQ updates they would have to become their own resellers. Of course people will be wary to buy your HW in first place unless they know for sure they will not be locked out like that. Well, believers in free market forces unite. If there still is a market, then somebody else will step in. and here the problems start. The people have already paid for SMSQ so the new reseller is practically only supposed to distribute upgrades and provide support. This appears even less interesting for potential resellers because they can hardly charge very much for an upgrade. So market forces would dictate someone become a reseller, quickly sell a few binaries and quit beeing a reseller. Your license doesn't say anything about how long a reseller is expected to provide support, nor whatever you consider support. Why don't you reconsider the get support in exchange for paying binaries in favor of normal support contracts? Moreover, if the seller is not there any more, who will sort you the user's hardware problem? some people on this mailing list are really great in helping such cases. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: On 18 May 2002, at 1:22, Jeremy Taffel wrote: Wolfgang, I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with Richard's comments on the proposed licence. I'm not cheesed off by the reply. I'm cheesed off when reference is made to private correspondence. sorry, didn't know this detail was in any sensitive. Furthermore having expended much time and effort -and potentially money if he has to buy hardware, or technical consultancy to enable him to provide the support, you can pull the plug at any time by tearing the licence up. That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? so if it is not at all in your interest, why don't you give everyone reasonable guarantee that this won't happen? This is not the way to encourage the few souls who are both willing and capable of making SMSQ available and useful to a wider audience to harness their talents to our mutual benefit. Oh? What wider audience? DO you really mean that letting an unsupported OS float around the shareware scenen would make for a wider audience? I've been contacted from SuSE, Jakub Jelinek is himself an ex-ql user. Simon Goodwin mentioned it in some article for some Linux magazine (don't ask me which). Compare it with the publicity SMSQ had in mainstream media in the last few years. Yes, I do believe that you could easilly double the user base within a year with a reasonable license. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: than the license is very badly engineered. It enforces discipline by rather brute methods that will only hurt people who would like to help and leaves too many important points wide open. I have proposed alternatives to Wolfgang, something like this: you are allowed to do anything with this code as long as - you accept this copyright - you leave this copyright message intact and don't place any additional restrictions on the code - you don't sell this source or anything derived from this source, including binaries - you don't branch the code. licensing for commercial purposes is available under following conditions: ... ... Forgetting, of course: you may not distribute the binaries. But then, of course, this isn't to your liking any more, is it? even if you include this restriction it would be an improvement. But what was your reasoning that you desperately need this restriction again? ( ..since you have asked me not to refer to private email) Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: On 18 May 2002, at 12:13, Richard Zidlicky wrote: (...) so don't comment private correspondence and answer the questions. So rephrase the questions without reference to private correspondence. someone else happened to ask the same question so I will wait whether you answer his question. I could read the disassembly before you had the idea that this is illegal. And the fact that I had this idea now changes that? sure. As are all licences. nonsense. Some licenses state a minimal set of rights that can't be revoked. Other contain enough guarantees regarding fair use of the code that I won't care if some future version of the license would turn into Microsoft shared source license. Your license doesn't qualify either way. Nonsense. So yo revoke the passage that contains irrrevocable rights... interesting... so you sell someone a car and later modify the contract to the extent that you only sold him a bicycle? You must be a really cool lawyer. Rubbish. You can always refuse to buy an upgrade if you don't want it. not if it comes bundled with important bugfixes. Do you want to maintain bugfix releases of old versions? What kind of an argumlent is this? If the bugfixes are sufficient reason to buy an upgrade, buy it for the bugfixes and tgetthe new features thrown in for free - or do you mean that you would complain if you also had new features? so is it thrown in for free or does it cost extra money? I know that you are highly cooperative wrt special agreements Nice. Which ones are you referring to? should I refer to private mail again? Peter might have respondend himself would you have kept the cc ql-developpers (I am adding it again). I've always used this list. I see no reason to change. keeping a cc is trivial, where is the problem? Sorry to say but this is just racketeering. Are you accusing me of racketeering Peter Graf? If not me, then whom? you should have taken the past development (for which you are not directly responsible of course) and Peter's concerns into account - it is important part of preconditions when considering a new license. 1 - Answer the question about the rackettering. haven't I? In case you didn't notice, the whole paragraph (and the whole preceeding text) was conditionalised by the sentence Wolfgang you are welcome to give us your *guarantees* that I am wrong. I really considered the case was purely rhetorical but maybe it is too early to judge. 2 - I see no reason why I should have taken into account past developments for anybody. If anybody has an issue with the way developments were done in the past, I'd suggest they take it up with TT. Can you understand that we are now talking about the future? How can a new (and as yet nion existing) licence cover software in the past? Unless you want to guarantee the Q40 users and Peter that : - the minimal features on the Q40/Q60 will work - Q40/Q60 will be further supported by SMSQ, nonregarding whether the now official resellers are willing or able to futher support it. Why should I guarantee anyything to anybody? Are you trying to make me responsible for the code, writing it, maintaining it, fixing bugs? Boy, what a lack of understanding of the licence and the office of the registrar. you are taking a lot of responsibility on you. With an open source license nobody would even get the idea to make you responsible for something like that. If you insist to obfuscate development by the means of a restrictive licence more people might consider you responsible for the failure. Sorry, but my impression is that your license is not at all in the best interest of the users who need good support pretty desperately. You know, the users care about such trivial things like partitioning hard drives. Ususally I would not hold *you* responsible for this as Peter and me would do the few fixes myself, however your license does make it impossible for a few people to support SMSQ so you should see how you want to fill the holes. Thanks for not holding me responsible - now be a good sport and bar the normally. than why do you insist on this strange license? Your license also leaves the question of availablity for specific platforms completely unresolved, hence my concern about Q40/Q60 SMSQ availability. Is that too much asked? You can also try to convince me with a different license. Guess what ? I don't have to convince you. Availability for specific platform is simply done via the resellers. If a specific platform isn't catered for, then a new reseller can do this. so in the worst case the poor users have to hope that someone will volunteer to become a reseller. Test versions are catered for. so for the Q40 we are all running test versions until now?
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
- Original Message - From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code In message 005a01c1ff8d$3d771310$b25d86d9@macnamark39uau, Mike MacNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Where is Quantas input in this matter, I thought they contributed to the development of SMSQ. Why are they not distributing an official version, and as members will no doubt want to help develop SMSQ, they would be well suited to handling this. Quanta have never contributed to the development of SMSQ/E If you say so, OK, I seem to remember a few years ago a big conflab about using the Quanta funds to pay for a new OS(SMSQ?) On the other points, as I say you have always had my support, as have the other traders past and present., and my sympathys. One point you make is that the QL is now just a hobby machine, why then all this fuss over a license for something people just want to play with.? mike -- 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
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Mike MacNamara wrote: One point you make is that the QL is now just a hobby machine, why then all this fuss over a license for something people just want to play with.? Mike, Some people are quite upset about this license, and some disagree with it mildly, like me. Some people like it. Some people are panting in anticipation for it. Why all the fuss? Because unless Minerva is made open source fairly soon, SMSQ will be THE future of the QL, and the future requires software and hardware development. As long as SMSQ is run on hardware that runs 1/10th the speed of bottom end PCs, and as long as software is written in a discouraging environment, the QL scene will continue to contract. I was drawn back in and decided to develop a few things. Not with an intent to make money (indeed, I am already several $000's out of pocket) but to provide what the market needs. I considered developing a custom hardware platform, specifically for uQLx, which would allow people a higher performance, lower cost upgrade path with consistent and compatible hardware. Unfortunately, it rapidly became clear that uQLx was hampered by the lack of SMSQ support (through no fault of uQLx). When this offer came up I thought it was great. But the license is quite subtle, and in other ways quite blatantly unbalanced. If I were to write something revolutionary for SMSQ, I would have to surrender any income for it, to the official resellers. If I wanted to sell SMSQ with my hardware product, I would have to either be a reseller, or have a version of SMSQ for uQLx on ARM specially sanctioned by the Registrar, and supported by the official resellers. The issues are various and many. Liability for contributed bugs. Synchronising of sources between various developers aka the distribution limitation. Discouragement to produce based on lack of return funding. This license protects the interests of resellers by not allowing others to sell it (fair) and requires the contributors to accept no compensation for their development efforts (unfair) whilst forcing them to go to unnecessary lengths to acquire current sources. What is reasonable for a developer to expect from this license? It's reasonable to expect fast communication and delivery/exchange of sources with the registrar and other developers. It's reasonable that if they produce hardware, they should be able to create approved binaries to include with the product and pay directly to the registrar the 10 euro fee. It's reasonable that the resellers should be allowed to sell the approved versions also. What is it reasonable for a user to expect from this license? It's reasonable to expect current binaries and/or sources, which you cannot sell, except in their entirity (first sale doctrine). That you get support, and a period of free upgrades, or upgrades at a cost which is not an obstacle to upgrading. That if the OS/upgrades are tied to hardware, you can go direct to the hardware seller to get them, or for support. That you receive good quality, complete documentation. What is reasonable for the authorised resellers to expect from this license? It is reasonable to expect that the registrar will keep you informed of current sources/executables. It is reasonable that you make a profit from selling SMSQ. It is reasonable that you forward inquiries to developers if they are better able to assist, and that they do so. What is reasonable for the Registrar to expectf rom this license? The registrar role is key to this exercise. The work has competing interests and priorities - you must have the patience of a God, the stamina of an athlete and the knowledge of Einstein. Also, you must maintain records. Meticulous records. You must track incoming and outgoing patches and updates, act as a communications hub between developers, resellers and beta testers. Also, you must keep a central database of who bought what, when, and from who. Resellers will change over time, and it is vital to know who is supported and who is not. You need a way to share information with a reseller about whether a copy was legitimately purchased by a user, so any reseller can tell if they should be charging the upgrade or full fee. Also, with conflicts like those between (for example) the current resellers and the Qx0 developers, you will need to ascertain whether copies are being legitimately sold and supported, or unreasonably witheld. There's more to it than that, but you, dear Registrar, have the toughest job of all. The current license satisfies the needs of the resellers, who are given rights but no responsibilities, (though the resellers are GOOD people and take on those responsibilities willingly, they are not required to do so) and the developers, who have responsibilities but no rights (the right to withdraw code if a bug is found, the right to make a small sum for their possibly extensive work, etc) The users will be
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: There is no difference between the free and non free developper Sure there is. Your commercial developer has agreements outside this license that make sure his executables won't be lost, and will be sold for him by his resellers (which are also your appointed resellers). The free developers (the majority) have only this license, which does NOT make sure their executables won't be lost, does NOT make sure it will be distributed for free, ONLY MAYBE it is sold for the commercial purposes of others, for unknown money. What separate agreements are we atlking about here? See above. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Dave wrote: Some people are quite upset about this license, and some disagree with it mildly, like me. True, but you have it easier disagreeing just midly than we. For us it is not only a question of wasted work or time, but we have extremely expensive stuff on the shelf. Just for example the CPUs for the 80 MHz version costs more than EUR 600 each! I depend on Tony Tebby working for me, or, as he would allow, free developers doing the thing. Now if someone else cuts us off development for our machine we're losing out. That's one of the reasons, why I can't be as relaxed as you. What can I do? Push development for QDOS Classic and Minerva? Maybe. But that would take long and comes at a terrible cost of work, that is needed elsewhere. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Timothy, I think that the Reference Guide was a document that Jochen put together - and therefore belongs to him from a copyright point of view? Has anyone approached Jochen about the Reference Guide? Having said that you have an excellent point in that nobody has been saying anything about the documentation side of things.I doubt whether Jochen makes any money from it and does it mainly as a service to the community. I know he has had problems keeping it up-to-date. Certainly if the SMSQ/E documentataion could be treated as a communual effort and also if it could be distributed electronically (albeit in what format would need agreeing) I think it would be much easier to keep it up-to-date. This will become more of an issue of authors start making all the extensions to SMSQ/E that we are hoping would happen. If it matters I could supply a secure web site for hosting such items. Coming back to the original source code license, there has been a lot of discussion about only sending the source via physical media. I agree very strongly with others comments that this seems a needless restriction. It seems to add cost and inconvenience for very little gain. It is very easy to provide a secure web site that only allows authorised users to download any file(s) - and also records every such download if that matters! If necessary such a site could be partitioned so that there were different levels of security around different files. Dave - Original Message - From: Timothy Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 6:08 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code I've glanced over the comments made by others on the SMSQ/E official statement and have decided to take a nice long look at the statement myself. The comments below are strictly my opinion, not based on any input from the other commentors. At 02:50 PM 5/13/2002 +0200, you wrote: Official statement == 3/ No distribution of SMSQ/E may be SOLD, except for the official distribution. This interdiction includes that of including and distributing SMSQ/E in Public domain libraries. Official distributions will be sold in compiled (binary) form, possibly together with the official distribution as source code. For such sales, for the time being, two distributors/resellers, namely Jochen MERZ (JMS) and Roy WOOD (QBRANCH) have been appointed by the copyright holder. Resellers provide support for the versions sold by them. Except by prior agreement, binary, i.e. compiled, versions of SMSQ/E may not be distributed other than through the distributors. It would be better to leave out stating who the official distributors are in this Official Statement, and put it in a separate document. It would be kind of like putting in the name of the Officers in a set of By-Laws, as the names will change over time, and the By-Laws probably will not. 4/ The registrar, i.e. me, will maintain official distributions of SMSQ/E, in binary and source code form, one for each machine on which SMSQ/E may run. I would recommend defining the terms Registrar (but not as me) and Distributor/Reseller. Just to fully clarify who they are and what they do. 5/ Any person may make any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions to the source code he feels like. Any person may give away to others the modification 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. I understand the total avoidance of any one making money off of the source code for SMSQ/E, but I feel not allowing charges for media a bit strict. A simple workaround would be to send the person a blank CD or other disk and some IRC's. I am assuming that IRC's are not considered a form of currency. If your local Post Office does not know that an IRC is, then talk directly to the Post Master for that Office. There is no reason for a Postal Employee to not know their job. I spent 8.5 years as a federal employee, so I know the power of the chain of command. This distribution of the source code including the changes/additions/modifications/adaptions made by any author may not be made in electronic form other than on a physical disk. I really don't understand not allowing distribution via anything other than sneaker-net. What would be the consequences of the Registrar, putting the Official Distribution Source Code of SMSQ/E on a web server? It could be arranged that the requester must give their name and address before getting the Source Code. As someone that is about 5,000 miles from the Registrar, mail can take an awfully long time. Plus, someone like Thierry, sitting on a French Naval ship in the Persian Gulf, mail is very slow to come. As a veteran I try to keep fellow service members in mind. Distribution
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Dave Walker wrote: Coming back to the original source code license, there has been a lot of discussion about only sending the source via physical media. I agree very strongly with others comments that this seems a needless restriction. It seems to add cost and inconvenience for very little gain. It is very easy to provide a secure web site that only allows authorised users to download any file(s) - and also records every such download if that matters! If necessary such a site could be partitioned so that there were different levels of security around different files. Indeed. As a developer, one would expect to be kept up-to-date with the latest sources automatically. To expect developers to do so by mail, at their own expense, when there are instant methods available that incur no expense and enhance communication between the various developers is indeed a needless restriction. Separately, and this is complex because of my situation, but let's put it this way... Peter Graf and I do not exactly see eye to eye. We have agreed to disagree when it comes to developing hardware for the Qx0. However, I must stand up 100% in support for him. The resellers do not wish to sell a Qx0 version of SMSQ. The only way for them to supply Qx0 in this situation is to become resellers themselves. This is a distraction from what they're trying to do. Also, they may not be qualified, or may consider other development tasks more pressing, than supporting SMSQ users. If I end up handling hardware sales, would I have to become an SMSQ reseller? I'm not qualified. But if the resellers declined to offer the ZYXABC version of SMSQ (as they have done with the Qx0) I would have no choice but to find someone who can do it, and add those support costs to the cost of the product. Notwithstanding that I would have to keep requesting and paying for current sources just to stay in tune. I think any reseller should be required to provide all versions of SMSQ or none at all. Anyway, the situation is not a happy one. There are two main hardware developers who would need to include SMSQ with a new product. DD, and the Goldfire outfit. DD appears to be sidelined out of SMSQ, and if I were selling Goldfires I would be sidelined too, just because of the development hurdles being thrown down before me. Now, what is the objective of this license? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 11:48:30AM +0200, Peter Graf wrote: As requested by Wolfgang Lenerz, I visit ql-users for a statement about the SMSQ/E license. The past: 1. SMSQ/E was simply a commercial product from commercial work. It was developed and supported by Tony Tebby for native 68k hardware platforms, e.g. GoldCard, QXL, SuperGoldCard, Q40, Q60. My part in financing was for the development of the Q40 specific things including highcolor. I haven't gained rights over SMSQ/E, nor did I expect that. It is true that Tony did not implement everything completely, e.g. he promised the code would be free from non-68060 instructions, but I do *not* criticise Tony therefore. Overall I am very happy with all the efforts Tony put into Q40 SMSQ/E!!! Fine. (Richard Zidlicky was wrong here IMO.) I appreciate his efforts but there is a few details that remain to be fixed. Notably hard disk support can't be regarded sufficient. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
- Original Message - From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SNIP that is the optimist view. However there is nothing in the license that would guarantee me that the source code would be continuously available in the future. There is nothing in the license that would guarantee me any of my changes will get back into official SMSQ. There is nothing in the license to guarantee me that official or inofficial binaries of SMSQ will be available. There is also nothing in the licence that will guarantee that you will not be run over by a bus - stop being silly. All of this continual bickering and hair splitting is getting needlessly introspective -- Roy Wood From a users viewpoint when TT allowed smsqe to become open I reckon many users thought GREAT news as TT was giving part time support to it ( understandable and no disrespect intended ), we looked forward to further development and goodies that would justify our continued use of the various system that use it. Well I have to tell you guys if as much effort had gone into code as has gone into nitpicking and general etimewasting then we would have the Space Shuttle running on SMSQE by now ( just don't enter any very long planet names though ). Just do it - while I still have the faith all the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
- Original Message - From: Bill Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code - Original Message - From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SNIP that is the optimist view. However there is nothing in the license that would guarantee me that the source code would be continuously available in the future. There is nothing in the license that would guarantee me any of my changes will get back into official SMSQ. There is nothing in the license to guarantee me that official or inofficial binaries of SMSQ will be available. There is also nothing in the licence that will guarantee that you will not be run over by a bus - stop being silly. All of this continual bickering and hair splitting is getting needlessly introspective -- Roy Wood From a users viewpoint when TT allowed smsqe to become open I reckon many users thought GREAT news as TT was giving part time support to it ( understandable and no disrespect intended ), we looked forward to further development and goodies that would justify our continued use of the various system that use it. Well I have to tell you guys if as much effort had gone into code as has gone into nitpicking and general etimewasting then we would have the Space Shuttle running on SMSQE by now ( just don't enter any very long planet names though ). Just do it - while I still have the faith all the best - Bill I agree entirely with Bill, having spent many thousands of pounds running several businesses with QLs and SMSQ/E, including Q40. We stopped because of the lack of development keeping pace with the market. I was delighted when SMSQ/E was made open source, and looked forward to a revival in QL fortunes, alas, this is not so, its not to be open source, which is more to do with vested interests trying to 'grab the ball', than with what will be best for QL users, and th QL. I may say that if TT had provided the support promised to Qubide, Q40 and SMSQ/E, we may have still been running 8 QLs full time, and spending a goodly sum each year with traders, to TTs benefit. I, as a user, only see that TT at last has given access to code, that is long overdue( never mind copyrights, what about my rights, I have paid good money on the promise of continuing development. I feel badly treated in this.) and should have happened years ago. Now the pack are fighting over the bones. At the end of the day it is we users who decide to continue with support for the QL, or to go elsewhere and let the predators starve to death. Whats wrong with the Linux setup, it works. SMSQ would work as well, even if there were a couple of versions, that at least adds competition to differant systems and leads to healthy development. Tony, Dave sorry to punctuation and grammar, can't see keyboard for red clouds Regards to all Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 07:50:06AM +0100, Dexter wrote: If I end up handling hardware sales, would I have to become an SMSQ reseller? I'm not qualified. But if the resellers declined to offer the ZYXABC version of SMSQ (as they have done with the Qx0) I would have no choice but to find someone who can do it, and add those support costs to the cost of the product. Notwithstanding that I would have to keep requesting and paying for current sources just to stay in tune. unfortunately your inconvenience is only the smaller problem. The bigger one - what happens if you are fed up and go out of business? There are perhaps 100s of users with your hardware without any reseller, so to get SMSQ updates they would have to become their own resellers. Of course people will be wary to buy your HW in first place unless they know for sure they will not be locked out like that. Surely this is not the intention of the license? Richard
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 01:05:42AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: Interestingly, not all legitimate commercial interests are served equally humbly here. When Peter Graf tried to acquire the right to give away (for free) SMSQ-Q40 binaries in exchange for a substantial payment to TT he was turned down (not because he offered too little money btw). This means that Peter has no means to ensure that SMSQ will be available for the Q40/Q60 in the future - and that after having invested horrendeous amounts of money into SMSQ development for functionality that isn't even implemented until today. This line of argument is spurious. SMSQ/E for the Q40/Q60 will continue to exist and Peter or you have the right to apply to become an official reseller. Your only commitment in this regard is that you offer support for the versions you sell and you pay the licence fee for the copies you sell. You can sell them at cost if you want that is up to you. I will not be selling Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E and neither will Jochen so the ball is in your court. thanks for clarifying this. Again apply to be a =n official reseller and follow the rules. Give it away for free if you want but pay TT for each one sold. It is that simple. As far as I can tell this was exactly what Peter wanted - what was the problem? Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:52:06AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: This is surely not a problem because the technically advanced can have the source code and do the fixes, pass these back to Richard and he can get them into an 'official' UQLX SMSQ/E. that is the optimist view. However there is nothing in the license that would guarantee me that the source code would be continuously available in the future. There is nothing in the license that would guarantee me any of my changes will get back into official SMSQ. There is nothing in the license to guarantee me that official or inofficial binaries of SMSQ will be available. There is also nothing in the licence that will guarantee that you will not be run over by a bus - stop being silly. Thanks for the hint, I will try other methods to minimise the risk of beeing run over by a bus. Unfortunately there is not much I could do to minimise the risks inherent to this license - silly or not I am simply not interested to put any effort into SMSQ under this conditions. All of this continual bickering and hair splitting is getting needlessly introspective You have easy to speak when you can change the license to your liking whenever you feel like that. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Dave wrote: Peter Graf and I do not exactly see eye to eye. We have agreed to disagree when it comes to developing hardware for the Qx0. Yes, and it is perfectly OK by me, if you prefer to develop for Goldfire or the black QL! They may need your help even more than Qx0. Just imagine today's license situation had already existed when Q40 hardware was finished. Not the slightest chance to have SMSQ/E on Q40. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Mike wrote: I agree entirely with Bill, having spent many thousands of pounds running several businesses with QLs and SMSQ/E, including Q40. We stopped because of the lack of development keeping pace with the market. I was delighted when SMSQ/E was made open source, and looked forward to a revival in QL fortunes, alas, this is not so, its not to be open source, which is more to do with vested interests trying to 'grab the ball', than with what will be best for QL users, and th QL. I hereby state that I don't try to grab SMSQ/E and will agree to the usual existing OpenSource licenses. Furthermore I offer to pay a substantial amount of money if SMSQ/E becomes free for all. The only thing I ask for, is to give the non-commercial developers we need for Q40 and Q60 a *real* opportunity to do their work! Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Bill Waugh wrote: Well I have to tell you guys if as much effort had gone into code as has gone into nitpicking and general etimewasting then we would have the Space Shuttle running on SMSQE by now ( just don't enter any very long planet names though ). I wouldn't really call it nitpicking or timewasting. The license under which SMSQ is eventually released will have a dramatic effect on the future of the platform. A few of us developers (I count myself as the most recent developer, but many others have been around since the mid-80's) have reservations about this license. Lots of heated discussion, little progress. Very important, all the same. I've already made my business decision. SMSQ under this license would not be relevant to the future of the QL scene, because no commercial developer could work with any feeling of security under it. If people aren't comfortable, they'll use something else they are comfortable with. D
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I am sorry to say that I am very, very disappointed. I have been a loyal QL user from nearly day 1, have never made any money off of it, but keep going at it. I am now working extremely hard on QDT as some of you may know. To be honest, it is a labor of love. I will be happy if I ever make enough money to pay for my trips to the shows that I do get the chance to attend. I am very appreciative of all who have kept the QL alive. Some make money off if (not much I bet) and others don't. This includes both those involved in the hardware and software; all very much appreciated, whether or not I use their product. Everyone counts in this group. I recently just joined this email list because I was hoping to get some help on some implementation problems that I am having with the QDT project. Instead I have been getting this stream of emails that, to be very blunt, sounds like a lot on non-productive whining. I understand that there are major disagreements in the license plans for SMSQ/E. But I would hope that, instead of putting the dirty laundry out for the public to see (and it is very disappointing to have to see all this), that the parties who are involved would try to have some constructive and pro-active direct contact amongst themselves to resolve the disagreements. And, as it is in the real world, not everything is going to be perfect for everyone. The parties involved need to step back, take a breath, try to understand what is important to them AND to the others. And then, and only then, with that understanding and acceptance, come up with some real proposals that try to do the best for all involved. I will continue to work on QDT. I made a decision a long time ago that it will require SMSQ/E to run as there are some major pieces that I need from SMSQ/E to to it properly without having to write a tremendous amount of additional code. I would hope that everyone can come to an agreement about this license that will support SMSQ/E for all systems currently available which will allow QDT to also run on them. Just as a final reality check, until a few months ago, SMSQ/E was not open source or anything else. It was being maintained by Tony and a few vendors who put a lot of effort into getting changes done as required to run on different systems and to add important capabilities (such as color drivers). And I suspect that there hasn't been much money made off of it for some time for anyone. As far as I can see, with the new licensing being worked out, everyone should try to make the best of it for everyone, instead of making it ideal for themselves. I hope that this didn't come over too bluntly, but I have to deal with disagreements much larger than this everyday in my 'real' job and we get them resolved, without resorting to the kind of stuff that I have been reading for the last couple of days. I really enjoy working on my system and my development of QDT. So, please guys, just find a way to resolve this and get on with it. Jim
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], James Hunkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I am sorry to say that I am very, very disappointed. I have been a loyal QL user from nearly day 1, have never made any money off of it, but keep going at it. I am now working extremely hard on QDT as some of you may know. To be honest, it is a labor of love. I will be happy if I ever make enough money to pay for my trips to the shows that I do get the chance to attend. QDT seems a very interesting development. A GUI would put 'QL_ware' into the frame with modern OS's. I learn't computing on non-GUI machines, yet I now use the GUI's available for other OS's all the time. I haven't commented on QDT before ... yet if you need any help with user testing, then I could oblige. I am very appreciative of all who have kept the QL alive. Some make money off if (not much I bet) and others don't. This includes both those involved in the hardware and software; all very much appreciated, whether or not I use their product. Everyone counts in this group. As are we all ... I recently just joined this email list because I was hoping to get some help on some implementation problems that I am having with the QDT project. Instead I have been getting this stream of emails that, to be very blunt, sounds like a lot on non-productive whining. These discussions come and go ... as they saying goes put group of experts in the same room and they will never agree :-) I understand that there are major disagreements in the license plans for SMSQ/E. But I would hope that, instead of putting the dirty laundry out for the public to see (and it is very disappointing to have to see all this), that the parties who are involved would try to have some constructive and pro-active direct contact amongst themselves to resolve the disagreements. I believe thrashing out the arguments is actually very healthy. And, as it is in the real world, not everything is going to be perfect for everyone. The parties involved need to step back, take a breath, try to understand what is important to them AND to the others. And then, and only then, with that understanding and acceptance, come up with some real proposals that try to do the best for all involved. I will continue to work on QDT. I made a decision a long time ago that it will require SMSQ/E to run as there are some major pieces that I need from SMSQ/E to to it properly without having to write a tremendous amount of additional code. I would hope that everyone can come to an agreement about this license that will support SMSQ/E for all systems currently available which will allow QDT to also run on them. Just as a final reality check, until a few months ago, SMSQ/E was not open source or anything else. It was being maintained by Tony and a few vendors who put a lot of effort into getting changes done as required to run on different systems and to add important capabilities (such as color drivers). And I suspect that there hasn't been much money made off of it for some time for anyone. As far as I can see, with the new licensing being worked out, everyone should try to make the best of it for everyone, instead of making it ideal for themselves. I hope that this didn't come over too bluntly, but I have to deal with disagreements much larger than this everyday in my 'real' job and we get them resolved, without resorting to the kind of stuff that I have been reading for the last couple of days. I really enjoy working on my system and my development of QDT. So, please guys, just find a way to resolve this and get on with it. I believe it will resolve ... even if it seems fraught when written down in emails. Face to face discussions most often resolve the main issues anyway. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I agree entirely with Bill, having spent many thousands of pounds running several businesses with QLs and SMSQ/E, including Q40. We stopped because of the lack of development keeping pace with the market. I was delighted when SMSQ/E was made open source, and looked forward to a revival in QL fortunes, alas, this is not so, its not to be open source, which is more to do with vested interests trying to 'grab the ball', than with what will be best for QL users, Not true really. The source is open. You can get it and read it and change it. All we are trying to do is to ensure that released version have been properly tested, are stable and will work with existing software as best we can. This is in the interests of QL users I feel. and th QL. I may say that if TT had provided the support promised to Qubide, Q40 and SMSQ/E, we may have still been running 8 QLs full time, and spending a goodly sum each year with traders, to TTs benefit. I don't really see what TT had to do with the Qubide but the rumours about what was about to appear spread very fast. I, as a user, only see that TT at last has given access to code, that is long overdue( never mind copyrights, what about my rights, I have paid good money on the promise of continuing development. I feel badly treated in this.) Why so ? There was continued development for a long time. The user base has fallen a lot and TT can no longer afford to support it. To be truthful the remaining traders can no longer afford to support it but we do because we have made many friends over the years and won't be letting them down. and should have happened years ago. Now the pack are fighting over the bones. At the end of the day it is we users who decide to continue with support for the QL, or to go elsewhere and let the predators starve to death. I don't think any one is being a predator here. There is no money being made on SMSQ/E. Whats wrong with the Linux setup, it works. SMSQ would work as well, even if there were a couple of versions, that at least adds competition to differant systems and leads to healthy development. See my previous comments on that. We are too small a community and have too few software writers for different flavours of SMSQ/E to co-exist. If we have some things that will only run on one version and some that will only run on another we will lose the few users we have left. -- 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-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
As far as I can tell this was exactly what Peter wanted - what was the problem? He wanted a one off payment and exemption as far as I was told. -- 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
Peter Graf and I do not exactly see eye to eye. We have agreed to disagree when it comes to developing hardware for the Qx0. However, I must stand up 100% in support for him. The resellers do not wish to sell a Qx0 version of SMSQ. The only way for them to supply Qx0 in this situation is to become resellers themselves. This is a distraction from what they're trying to do. Also, they may not be qualified, or may consider other development tasks more pressing, than supporting SMSQ users. They cannot sell a SMSQ/E driven version of the Q40/Q60 without a copy of SMSQ/E or it would not work. Therefore they have to become resellers by default. If their product had a BIOS as PCs do then they could opt out. I have opted out of selling Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E not because I want to but because it is un-necessary. The O/S is on the chip when the user buys it and everything else is an upgrade and therefore freely distributable as far as I can see. The only obligation is that the upgrades are official versions. It costs nothing to the supplier except the cost of distribution and it is up to him how much he charges. If I end up handling hardware sales, would I have to become an SMSQ reseller? I'm not qualified. But if the resellers declined to offer the ZYXABC version of SMSQ (as they have done with the Qx0) I would have no choice but to find someone who can do it, and add those support costs to the cost of the product. Notwithstanding that I would have to keep requesting and paying for current sources just to stay in tune. If you want to put SMSQ/E on the GoldFire Chip then fine. Pay the fee, be a reseller and the same applies to you as the above. I did not say I would not support users of the Q40 SMSQ/E if they come to me for help and I would be happy to do the same for the GoldFire because I would buy one and even offer to sell them for you. I think any reseller should be required to provide all versions of SMSQ or none at all. As I said above I sell all of the software versions but the Q40/Q60 version is a hardware one so I cannot sell it as such. If you have a Q 40 I can offer to get a ROM blow for you and software updates are free apart from postage. I already supplied most of the people who bought a Q40 from me with several free updates by post and the Internet. Anyway, the situation is not a happy one. There are two main hardware developers who would need to include SMSQ with a new product. DD, and the Goldfire outfit. DD appears to be sidelined out of SMSQ, and if I were selling Goldfires I would be sidelined too, just because of the development hurdles being thrown down before me. No not true. We have sidelined no one. -- 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-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Roy Wood wrote: Distribution of executables for free was always forbidden. Not true. I refer to the official statement made in public, not to the secrets of your meeting. The fact that it was not forbidden in the beginning, was a reason why some developers considered to work under this license at all! Some developers may still have missed this change. *** Distribution of executables for free was *not* forbidden in the first official statement! This has changed and caused severe implications on the availability of non-commercial work. *** You do like to split the words don't you ? It may have been missed out of the official statement but it was discussed and agreed at the very first meeting. You knew about the meeting and were going to come but decided not to. You mislead the public here. I became sick with influenza, staying in bed all week, another person was known to be on vacation, TT was not attending, and DD Systems was not invited. Also I was not informed the Eindhoven meeting was to *decide* anything. I would never expect such a meeting without TT. Everyone was invited via the message on the Internet. We were expecting you and I was not told to you had a cold and could not come. I was told that you had decided not to come and that was what I said. The meeting was not decide anything but to get the framework set out and that is what we did. If you want to have a voice you have to make the effort. Why should TT be there? He had clearly given his rights to Wolfgang and he said that on this user group. Just by the way, my hearing is not well enough to completely follow a such a complicated negotiation in *spoken* English. If we had shouted in your ear you would not have 'listened'. Fine. Develop it. Get it accepted as an authorised version. Sell it for 10 Euros or give it away for free. Just pay TT 10 Euros for each one sold. No problem. Unfortunately the license doesn't say that. Can I have this statement, without additions that make it void, from the registrar, and guarantees it won't change in the future ??? What ? A large problem would still remain: My *person* is no guaranty to non-commercial developers. I can get sick, or whatever. Their rights should be in the *license*. If they are not, I can hardly expect them to work for Qx0 SMSQ/E. These two comments smack of paranoia. [...] All of this is yet more paranoia. All the statements I made are clearly given by the license. If you want something else than the license says, change the liscense. I will be very happy to admit that you are right, then. There are extremly strict conditions to ensure everything *you* want. Why not rights for non-commercial development as well? That is something we have been discussing. [...] We all decided [...] This and other remarks suggest repeatedly that you participate in *decisions* about the license. So it is not just the registar and TT. Is this correct? No I reply when I am asked. Have you paid *more* for SMSQ/E development than I have, so *you* have the right to participate in decisions about SMSQ/E, and I have not? You have as much right to participate in the discussions as I have and I suspect that over the eight years I have been selling SMSQ/E and QPC 2 I have contributed more to TT than you have. You are, in fact participating in discussion right now. -- 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
Where is Quantas input in this matter, I thought they contributed to the development of SMSQ. Why are they not distributing an official version, and as members will no doubt want to help develop SMSQ, they would be well suited to handling this. Regards Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code All of this continual bickering and hair splitting is getting needlessly introspective You have easy to speak when you can change the license to your liking whenever you feel like that. I have no power over the licence. Only Wolfgang has that. He listens to me as much as he listens to you. In the end I am just one voice as are you. If he thought that your arguments or comments were better than he would go with yours because he has no commercial gain in the matter and ties to any of us. To put the record straight I was quite happy to accept no fee to TT this came from other areas and I was swayed by their arguments to agree. -- 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-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
At 07:18 AM 5/19/2002 +0100, you wrote: Timothy, When I got SMSQ/E from Jochen, I got: a) A generic SMSQ/E User Guide (38 pages) that was not machine specific b) Custom supplement pages for each hardware environment I bought (typically 6-10 pages) I agree that the SMSQ/E Reference manual is extra - but I do not think that is what was being refrred to. Dave I guess the point I was trying to make was that the 38 page guide was no where near comprehensive enough to document a full OS. I'm sure that it assumed that the user was already familiar with QDOS. The Gold Card/TKII manual was a little more in depth, as it only covered some extensions to the OS. The original poster said something about a printed handbook for SMSQ/E and I would expect a little more than a 38 page guide that barely covers the topics. Tim
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I guess you have to be European to become flame bait on this mailing list. Here I thought my last message about support and SMSQ/E would send electronic fire and brimstone heading my way. Instead, It seemed like it made not a single blip on the radar. So, I'll ask again, when we talk about support for SMSQ/E from the resellers (i.e. their value add), I don't know exactly what is meant. Does it mean bug fixes to SMSQ/E? Does it mean hard copy manuals? Does it mean hand-holding in getting SMSQ/E running and working? Does it means X free upgrades? Heck, is a less buggy version of SMSQ/E an upgrade? The license seems to make a big issue about the support from the vendors, but I really would like to know the extent and content of the support. I hope someone can educate me on this matter. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
OK, I've been reading the licence discussion for quite a while and I find it does make sense for a world where the following is clearly defined that: 1) A generic SMSQ core, common to ALL platforms (*) 2) SMSQ extensions, or more precisely, additions or changes to the core, start as a submissions to the registrar, and become, if accepted, a part of the next official core issue if aproved. 3) Add-ons, i.e. is everything that goes 'on top' of SMSQ but is not part of the core, and is probably speciffic to a particular platform. [Digression: (*) this 'common to all platforms' is a bit of an idealist view, a discussion for some other time] This may seem like an odd argument, but it is paramount for the issue of developement, support, distribution - not to mention that a clear definition of the above three is (or should be!) one of the main criteria used by the registrar to decide what becomes a part of SMSQ and what does not. If the above were true, whoever wants to have SMSQ on a different platform, would not strictly need to distribute the binary, but could instead point the users to one of the distributors, and offer the necessary add-ons to the core and a way to link everything, to make it work on that platform, removing the platform speciffic parts from under the coverage of the licence, and regulating the distribution and support for said as they see fit. In case a developer wants to do something with the core to enable new functionality, they would be able to get the official source under the conditions stipulated in the licence, see what and how would need changes, implement betas and have them distributed under the conditions of the licence (which I do find somewhat restrictive but not impossible), and eventually, propose their inclusion into the official generic core. Provided the registrar was convinced the proposed was or could be beneficial to everyone (**), it would then be included into the next official core, at which point the developer can use that to implement speciffic add-ons of their own, again handled outside of the core licence. [Digression: (**) a mechanism should be in place for the registrar to distribute certain beta versions simply because he would be in the best position to know the key developers for speciffic cases where a proposed change may have wide impact] The problem is, this is not the actual situation. Instead, we have SMSQ which has relatively monolitic parts some of which may be essential for one group and at the same time of no interest whatsoever for another. Because of the absurd idea that every platform or flavour thereof should have it's own SMSQ version, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to write a licence agreement which would satisfy everyone to an acceptable degree. Arguments like 'I paid for a feature and why should I submit it and have anyone but me benefit from it (financially)' are forever going to be oposed to 'I don't want to pay for anything because I only do things for free', and that's only the benign tip of the iceberg. We could collectively come up with a myriad scenarios in which any given wording of the licence would not work. I sincerely hope that not even an attempt will be made to cater for everything!!! What I would be doing to break this deadlock, is the following: get the current official source under the current licence. Have a good long look at it and figure out how to make a generic core from it. Then propose THAT to the registrar. Sounds like a lot of work for little gains? The way I see it, this may indeed be true in the short run. But if it's not ultimately done, we'll soon all be throwing in the towel because without this and a clear division what falls under the licence and what does not, i.e. without a clear picture of what SMSQ is and what it can grow into, the best we can hope for is for a situation where 'read TTs code' will be replaced by 'read ?s code' when it gets into the official release. NAsta
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with Richard's comments on the proposed licence. I missed out on some of this because I have been trying a new spam rejection program which was harder to configure than I thought so I apologise if some of my comments are slightly off. I think that he has some valid points which you don't seem to have understood. Think of it this way: Richard has done a good job with UQLX and has it working on may flavours of Unix, on different platforms and processors. It would benefit the community to SMSQ to have it supported by UQLX, and have Richard's Unixy extensions within it as he has already done for JS and Minerva. However, he does not have continous access to all those platforms, and definitely not all the combinations of interface cards, displays etc they come with. He therefore cannot guarantee support, or to fix problems. He helps where he can, and in the spirit of GNU etc, he makes the information available so that technically advanced users can help themselves. This is surely not a problem because the technically advanced can have the source code and do the fixes, pass these back to Richard and he can get them into an 'official' UQLX SMSQ/E. Under the current proposed licence, he cannot operate in this reasonable way. He cannot merely do his best, but he has to give an open-ended commitment to provide support -something that few if any software vendors would do. Only in the PC world. In practice most of the QL authors have, in the past, given pretty much open ended support. Bugs and problems get reported either to the authors or to the vendors and get passed on and, where possible, fixed. Marcel, in particular, has been pretty tireless in this area. There will be some insurmountable problems with some hardware but that is unavoidable, even on the best platforms. The problem of the many different flavours of both UNIX and LINUX is one of the things that this licence is setting out to try to avoid. He isn't even allowed to provide effective support -emailing patches, assistance over the phone of how to hack a config file outlawed by the proposed licence. Patches and hacks always confuse the issue and, given the complex nature of SMSQ/E a patch here may destroy something else there (This happened several times to TT himself so I should imagine it would be worse for someone who is not the original author). We want coherent and uniform versions of SMSQ/E not hacked and patched ones. Of course this may not matter if the patches and hacks are confined to UQLX but this is an opening for the 'if they can do why can't I?' This is not the way to encourage the few souls who are both willing and capable of making SMSQ available and useful to a wider audience to harness their talents to our mutual benefit. WE are only asking for discipline I think. I really do urge you to rethink this. Conversely, I would be interested to know how you intend to police the licence; it seems to me to be impossible, so perhaps Richard and others like him need not worry. There is also nothing to stop you copying the whole of the commercial library of QL programs and handing that out for free to. If you want to steal this is your conscience. p.s. Most unix distributions include an emulators package these days. Think how many extra users we might end up with (or ex-users that return) if we could get them to add UQLX +SMSQ etc into that package? A little matter of the fee to TT. I have no problem with running Q Branch for free, for instance, if my garage will give me petrol for nothing, the post office gives me stamps for nothing and you all come round to my house with food and drink when I am hungry and thirsty. Until this time I think you should pay the people whose services and goods you use and who ask for payment and thank politely those who are giving it all for free. I have nothing against free software and open licences but you cannot expect it as a right. -- 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
As requested by Wolfgang Lenerz, I visit ql-users for a statement about the SMSQ/E license. The past: 1. SMSQ/E was simply a commercial product from commercial work. It was developed and supported by Tony Tebby for native 68k hardware platforms, e.g. GoldCard, QXL, SuperGoldCard, Q40, Q60. My part in financing was for the development of the Q40 specific things including highcolor. I haven't gained rights over SMSQ/E, nor did I expect that. It is true that Tony did not implement everything completely, e.g. he promised the code would be free from non-68060 instructions, but I do *not* criticise Tony therefore. Overall I am very happy with all the efforts Tony put into Q40 SMSQ/E!!! Fine. (Richard Zidlicky was wrong here IMO.) 2. Tony Tebby effectively stopped working and agreed in principle to make SMSQ/E Open Source. He would even do that without getting money. This is very generous. Wolfgang Lenerz started to take care of this. Thanks to both. Fine. 3. An official statement about the SMSQ/E license was published (e.g. in QL Today). The contents was agreed upon in the absence of Tony Tebby, me, and DD Systems. It had several strange passages, but it did not forbid distribution of executables for free. This made sure that contributions from non-commercial authors can not get lost or abused. So at least the most important condition for non-commercial work seemed to be given. Resellers would get financial reward for their support. License oddities seemed to be in the process of being straightened out. Thinks still looked hopeful. Now: 4. Distribution of SMSQ/E executables for free was forbidden. This changes everything. It shows other passages of the license in a different light. The combination now means, that non-commercial contributors no longer get any rights from this license, except the revocable right to see a vanishing snapshot of the code (***). A purely commercial license, with precautions to also use (or throw away) non-commercial work for unlimited commercial purposes of others. What does this mean *practically* ? This is tailormade for a commercial developer, who has separate agreements with the appointed resellers. There seems to be one single commercial developer in the QL world who might need this license. (Personally I don't think he really does, because he's got a well selling emulator product.) Except this one person I don't know *any* system developer in the QL world who *needs* this license! But several developers who reject it. The situation for Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E: Tony Tebby was our only *commercial* developer. Tony Tebby worked for a wide variety of native 68k hardware. If Tony Tebby is replaced by a person mainly working for his commercial Windows emulator, this doesn't help us much. With Tony Tebby gone, Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E depends strongly on the work of non-commercial authors!!! These non-commercial authors would like to participate in development! For example, there are developers interested to implement 128 MB RAM support, harddisk improvements (4 GB), slaveblock solution, cache handling, better MMU usage, network support, 68k FPU support for SMSQ/E and so on. The ONLY REASON why they can NOT do do the work for SMSQ/E is this license, which locks them out. For the development of Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E this license is a DISASTER. (For hardware development for SMSQ/E it is a disaster as well.) Bye, Peter (***) Reasons why non-commercial contributors don't get any rights from this license, except the revocable right to see a vanishing snapshot of the code: If a contribution is accepted by the registrar, the license leaves completely open what will happen to the executable code of a contribution. All this can legally happen with your executable under the license (if the license itself is legal at all in your country): 1. It may be completely lost if the AR's (appointed resellers) simply don't sell it. 2. It may be lost for a specific platform only, if the AR's exclude a platform. 3. It may be sold so expensive only few will buy it anymore. 4. It may be sold expensive for a specific platform only. 5. It may be coupled with closed-source commercial code and later not be available without that code. 6. It may become expensive later on, because of commercial code added for completily different purposes. 7. It may be sold for unexpected commercial purposes outside the QL world. 8. It may be lost if one single AR gives up his work. All this also makes the rights concerning test versions completely void. Your executable code may be lost or abused, as soon as it is accepted. The license leaves *availability* out of the control of the registrar and puts it exclusively into the hands of AR's driven by commercial needs. (That's normal for commercial work, but not for non-commercial work.) So a non-commercial developer, even if he is willing that his *free* work is *only* sold, must always look around for an AR he can completely trust, and
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 09:18:24AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 16 May 2002, at 13:28, Richard Zidlicky wrote: can you say me how exactly the license requires the resellers to provide support? In our private discussion you went to great lengths to ensure me how they are required to provide support but I can't find absolutely nothing specific about it in this license. Specifically you have promised me that the resellers will be required to fix bugs and hire people for it if they can't do it themselves. I don't comment private correspondence. so don't comment private correspondence and answer the questions. Previously you asked me to voice my concerns publicaly so what do you actually want? Lets call things by name. It is not a license but a non-disclosure agreement - why you insist calling it licence is beyound me. You would probably save yourself and others lots of trouble if you would look at some proper commercial NDA. Usually a license would give me some rights, this strange elaborate only gives me the revocable right to read the code. Which you hadn't before. I could read the disassembly before you had the idea that this is illegal. It is also worth noting that the license is subject to change anytime without giving anyone even the slightest guarantees what the next license will look like. As are all licences. nonsense. Some licenses state a minimal set of rights that can't be revoked. Other contain enough guarantees regarding fair use of the code that I won't care if some future version of the license would turn into Microsoft shared source license. Your license doesn't qualify either way. This means that anyone who will want to do something with SMSQ will have to seek separate agreements with all other copyright holders, not a pretty situation. The license says the code is copyright TT. This a void claim which only describes the current state. The license is designed to taint SMSQ by 3d party code. There is absolutely no protection against patent traps, the possibility to include code without publicaly available source invites all sorts of copyright trouble and there is also the separate agreements I have mentioned above. The license doesn't say it, but from personal emails with Wolfgang I conclude that there are people who want to write code for SMSQ in exchange for future royalty payments. thanks for clarifying all this. There is nothing evil about commercial software development but we have a few problems here. There is no choice for the users and other developpers whether they want this 3d party commercial code. Rubbish. You can always refuse to buy an upgrade if you don't want it. not if it comes bundled with important bugfixes. Do you want to maintain bugfix releases of old versions? A bigger problem here is that some of the developers who want to write SMSQ code for commercial interests also decide about the license, basically this license is their work. For me this is an unfortunate combination, it is a guarantee that SMSQ will never be even close to opensource. Right - so the situation until now was very inconvenient because TT, who wrote SMSQ/E also wrote the licence? the situation was inconvenient because TT had limited resources. You are on the best way to waste even more resources by the means of licensing braindamage. The license wasn't a big concern as long as all code was copyright TT, now that you are going to get bogged down by a variety of separate licensing agreements it is a very big concern. Philosophically this is a very interesting concept: People who would like to contribute for free do not even get the right to use their contribution, those who will contribute commercially and seek separate agreements will also receive a share in the decissionmaking of the copyright/licensing as a reward. There is no difference between the free and non free developper - all go throught the registrar and are included in the code, or not, as the case may be. of course, there is only the difference between those who have a special agreement with the registrar and those fools who haven't. I know that you are highly cooperative wrt special agreements but do you think this is a good thing for SMSQ? Seriously, what is the license worth if everyone will have his special agreement? Interestingly, not all legitimate commercial interests are served equally humbly here. When Peter Graf tried to acquire the right to give away (for free) SMSQ-Q40 binaries in exchange for a substantial payment to TT he was turned down (not because he offered too little money btw). This means that Peter has no means to ensure that SMSQ will be available for the Q40/Q60 in the future - and that after having invested horrendeous amounts of money into SMSQ development for functionality that
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 10:39:29AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with Richard's comments on the proposed licence. I missed out on some of this because I have been trying a new spam rejection program which was harder to configure than I thought so I apologise if some of my comments are slightly off. I think that he has some valid points which you don't seem to have understood. Think of it this way: Richard has done a good job with UQLX and has it working on may flavours of Unix, on different platforms and processors. It would benefit the community to SMSQ to have it supported by UQLX, and have Richard's Unixy extensions within it as he has already done for JS and Minerva. However, he does not have continous access to all those platforms, and definitely not all the combinations of interface cards, displays etc they come with. He therefore cannot guarantee support, or to fix problems. He helps where he can, and in the spirit of GNU etc, he makes the information available so that technically advanced users can help themselves. This is surely not a problem because the technically advanced can have the source code and do the fixes, pass these back to Richard and he can get them into an 'official' UQLX SMSQ/E. that is the optimist view. However there is nothing in the license that would guarantee me that the source code would be continuously available in the future. There is nothing in the license that would guarantee me any of my changes will get back into official SMSQ. There is nothing in the license to guarantee me that official or inofficial binaries of SMSQ will be available. Under the current proposed licence, he cannot operate in this reasonable way. He cannot merely do his best, but he has to give an open-ended commitment to provide support -something that few if any software vendors would do. Only in the PC world. In practice most of the QL authors have, in the past, given pretty much open ended support. Bugs and problems get reported either to the authors or to the vendors and get passed on and, where possible, fixed. Marcel, in particular, has been pretty tireless in this area. There will be some insurmountable problems with some hardware but that is unavoidable, even on the best platforms. The problem of the many different flavours of both UNIX and LINUX is one of the things that this licence is setting out to try to avoid. He isn't even allowed to provide effective support -emailing patches, assistance over the phone of how to hack a config file outlawed by the proposed licence. Patches and hacks always confuse the issue and, given the complex nature of SMSQ/E a patch here may destroy something else there (This happened several times to TT himself so I should imagine it would be worse for someone who is not the original author). We want coherent and uniform versions of SMSQ/E not hacked and patched ones. Of course this may not matter if the patches and hacks are confined to UQLX but this is an opening for the 'if they can do why can't I?' things will not get better if there isn't any official version for some platform and people will try to compile their binaries from sourcecode.. perhaps sourcecode they received snail-mailed from whomever I don't know with an unknown set of hacks. This is not the way to encourage the few souls who are both willing and capable of making SMSQ available and useful to a wider audience to harness their talents to our mutual benefit. WE are only asking for discipline I think. than the license is very badly engineered. It enforces discipline by rather brute methods that will only hurt people who would like to help and leaves too many important points wide open. I have proposed alternatives to Wolfgang, something like this: you are allowed to do anything with this code as long as - you accept this copyright - you leave this copyright message intact and don't place any additional restrictions on the code - you don't sell this source or anything derived from this source, including binaries - you don't branch the code. licensing for commercial purposes is available under following conditions: ... ... If discipline is all you want than this should do quite well and still leave sufficient room for commercial development. The formulation above may seem a bit naive - it is. We aren't expecting to deal with criminals here, are we? Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
This is surely not a problem because the technically advanced can have the source code and do the fixes, pass these back to Richard and he can get them into an 'official' UQLX SMSQ/E. that is the optimist view. However there is nothing in the license that would guarantee me that the source code would be continuously available in the future. There is nothing in the license that would guarantee me any of my changes will get back into official SMSQ. There is nothing in the license to guarantee me that official or inofficial binaries of SMSQ will be available. There is also nothing in the licence that will guarantee that you will not be run over by a bus - stop being silly. All of this continual bickering and hair splitting is getting needlessly introspective -- 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-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Interestingly, not all legitimate commercial interests are served equally humbly here. When Peter Graf tried to acquire the right to give away (for free) SMSQ-Q40 binaries in exchange for a substantial payment to TT he was turned down (not because he offered too little money btw). This means that Peter has no means to ensure that SMSQ will be available for the Q40/Q60 in the future - and that after having invested horrendeous amounts of money into SMSQ development for functionality that isn't even implemented until today. This line of argument is spurious. SMSQ/E for the Q40/Q60 will continue to exist and Peter or you have the right to apply to become an official reseller. Your only commitment in this regard is that you offer support for the versions you sell and you pay the licence fee for the copies you sell. You can sell them at cost if you want that is up to you. I will not be selling Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E and neither will Jochen so the ball is in your court. Does he also have a good case to actually get the features implemented? Peter might have respondend himself would you have kept the cc ql-developpers (I am adding it again). He could also have replied had he not behaved like a teenager and stormed out this group. This fragmentation is stupid and childish. Ususally I would not hold *you* responsible for this as Peter and me would do the few fixes myself, however your license does make it impossible for a few people to support SMSQ so you should see how you want to fill the holes. Your license also leaves the question of availablity for specific platforms completely unresolved, hence my concern about Q40/Q60 SMSQ availability. Is that too much asked? You can also try to convince me with a different license. Again apply to be a =n official reseller and follow the rules. Give it away for free if you want but pay TT for each one sold. It is that simple. -- 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
I've glanced over the comments made by others on the SMSQ/E official statement and have decided to take a nice long look at the statement myself. The comments below are strictly my opinion, not based on any input from the other commentors. At 02:50 PM 5/13/2002 +0200, you wrote: Official statement == 3/ No distribution of SMSQ/E may be SOLD, except for the official distribution. This interdiction includes that of including and distributing SMSQ/E in Public domain libraries. Official distributions will be sold in compiled (binary) form, possibly together with the official distribution as source code. For such sales, for the time being, two distributors/resellers, namely Jochen MERZ (JMS) and Roy WOOD (QBRANCH) have been appointed by the copyright holder. Resellers provide support for the versions sold by them. Except by prior agreement, binary, i.e. compiled, versions of SMSQ/E may not be distributed other than through the distributors. It would be better to leave out stating who the official distributors are in this Official Statement, and put it in a separate document. It would be kind of like putting in the name of the Officers in a set of By-Laws, as the names will change over time, and the By-Laws probably will not. 4/ The registrar, i.e. me, will maintain official distributions of SMSQ/E, in binary and source code form, one for each machine on which SMSQ/E may run. I would recommend defining the terms Registrar (but not as me) and Distributor/Reseller. Just to fully clarify who they are and what they do. 5/ Any person may make any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions to the source code he feels like. Any person may give away to others the modification 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. I understand the total avoidance of any one making money off of the source code for SMSQ/E, but I feel not allowing charges for media a bit strict. A simple workaround would be to send the person a blank CD or other disk and some IRC's. I am assuming that IRC's are not considered a form of currency. If your local Post Office does not know that an IRC is, then talk directly to the Post Master for that Office. There is no reason for a Postal Employee to not know their job. I spent 8.5 years as a federal employee, so I know the power of the chain of command. This distribution of the source code including the changes/additions/modifications/adaptions made by any author may not be made in electronic form other than on a physical disk. I really don't understand not allowing distribution via anything other than sneaker-net. What would be the consequences of the Registrar, putting the Official Distribution Source Code of SMSQ/E on a web server? It could be arranged that the requester must give their name and address before getting the Source Code. As someone that is about 5,000 miles from the Registrar, mail can take an awfully long time. Plus, someone like Thierry, sitting on a French Naval ship in the Persian Gulf, mail is very slow to come. As a veteran I try to keep fellow service members in mind. Distribution of the changes/additions may be in binary(compiled) form, provided that the original and/or official version of SMSQ/E, which is copyright © T.Tebby, is not distributed in binary form as well. With all due respect, I don't think the above is physically possible. If I make a change to the SMSQ/E scheduler, I don't think that I can compile it and distribute it without including SMSQ/E (since this is what I have changed). If I can make a change and distribute it without any original SMSQ/E code, then I'm not actually modifying SMSQ/E and don't fall under this license. I think this statement needs to be looked at again. 1/ When a new author adds some code to make SMSQ/E better, only the resellers (and Tony Tebby) see some profit from it. Before I comment on this statement let me first say this: If the Emperor has no clothes, I'll be the first one to say that he does not. I hope all understand what I mean. Also, I hope no ones take offense at my asking the following question, as I am not trying to offend, but ask a question that I feel is pertinent and important. So, the above statement says that only TT and the Distributors/Resellers will see profit from SMSQ/E. A further statement says the resellers provide support when selling the binary versions, hence they should get some money. I've spend 5 years doing technical support for a living. Most companies define traditional support as meaning that if the product has a problem (like a bug), then the company is obligated to fix the bug (most of the time), else the buyer is getting no benefit for his dollars (and the support contract may be invalidated). In the case of SMSQ/E, if there is a
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Timothy, When I got SMSQ/E from Jochen, I got: a) A generic SMSQ/E User Guide (38 pages) that was not machine specific b) Custom supplement pages for each hardware environment I bought (typically 6-10 pages) I agree that the SMSQ/E Reference manual is extra - but I do not think that is what was being refrred to. Dave - Original Message - From: Timothy Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 4:59 AM Subject: Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code At 01:43 AM 5/19/2002 +0100, Roy Wood wrote: What rights are they ? As I have said we have no objections to you becoming an official reseller if you follow the rules. In fact we would be glad if you did because we have no wish to be involved with support for the Q40/Q60. As an official reseller you can sell SMSQ/E for whatever you want provided you pay the fee to TT, provide a printed manual, disk and support for the platforms that you sell.It really is that simple. Printed Manual When I got SMSQ/E I did not get a full printed manual. I got a hardware guide and a very short guide to SMSQ/E for the Q40 (bought mine 2 years ago). The Reference Manual was extra. If I had not know much about QDOS and SMSQ/E when I got the Q40, the manual would not have kept me from being SOL. The Gold Card manual was much more in depth than the SMSQ/E manual I got. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 16 May 2002, at 13:28, Richard Zidlicky wrote: can you say me how exactly the license requires the resellers to provide support? In our private discussion you went to great lengths to ensure me how they are required to provide support but I can't find absolutely nothing specific about it in this license. Specifically you have promised me that the resellers will be required to fix bugs and hire people for it if they can't do it themselves. I don't comment private correspondence. Personally I am very disappointed by this license. I know. Lets call things by name. It is not a license but a non-disclosure agreement - why you insist calling it licence is beyound me. You would probably save yourself and others lots of trouble if you would look at some proper commercial NDA. Usually a license would give me some rights, this strange elaborate only gives me the revocable right to read the code. Which you hadn't before. It is also worth noting that the license is subject to change anytime without giving anyone even the slightest guarantees what the next license will look like. As are all licences. This means that anyone who will want to do something with SMSQ will have to seek separate agreements with all other copyright holders, not a pretty situation. The license says the code is copyright TT. This a void claim which only describes the current state. The license is designed to taint SMSQ by 3d party code. There is absolutely no protection against patent traps, the possibility to include code without publicaly available source invites all sorts of copyright trouble and there is also the separate agreements I have mentioned above. The license doesn't say it, but from personal emails with Wolfgang I conclude that there are people who want to write code for SMSQ in exchange for future royalty payments. There is nothing evil about commercial software development but we have a few problems here. There is no choice for the users and other developpers whether they want this 3d party commercial code. Rubbish. You can always refuse to buy an upgrade if you don't want it. A bigger problem here is that some of the developers who want to write SMSQ code for commercial interests also decide about the license, basically this license is their work. For me this is an unfortunate combination, it is a guarantee that SMSQ will never be even close to opensource. Right - so the situation until now was very inconvenient because TT, who wrote SMSQ/E also wrote the licence? Philosophically this is a very interesting concept: People who would like to contribute for free do not even get the right to use their contribution, those who will contribute commercially and seek separate agreements will also receive a share in the decissionmaking of the copyright/licensing as a reward. There is no difference between the free and non free developper - all go throught the registrar and are included in the code, or not, as the case may be. Interestingly, not all legitimate commercial interests are served equally humbly here. When Peter Graf tried to acquire the right to give away (for free) SMSQ-Q40 binaries in exchange for a substantial payment to TT he was turned down (not because he offered too little money btw). This means that Peter has no means to ensure that SMSQ will be available for the Q40/Q60 in the future - and that after having invested horrendeous amounts of money into SMSQ development for functionality that isn't even implemented until today. If, as you state, the case is that Peter paid horrendous amounts of money to get some specific work done, and that work wasn't done, then I'd say he has a good case to get his money back. Sorry to say but this is just racketeering. Are you accusing me of racketeering Peter Graf? If not me, then whom? Given this precedens it also means that other HW developpers would be completely insane to invest money or effort into SMSQ without special agreements that will only make the overall situation worse. Wolfgang you are welcome to give us your *guarantees* that I am wrong. I've already pointed out several times here that my job is to make sure as much as possible that coherent versions exist for all machines. Last not least, there is the purely practical braindamage of the licence. I did quite frequently write drivers for HW which I didn't have installed myself, with SMSQ I would be required to smail the source changes for each development cycle to someone having the hardware - I am not even allowed to S P E L L the changes over phone line!! Not that I would consider touching the code with a 100 ft pole. So this is a moot point. If there is 1 good thing about NDA's than its that a closed circle of developers can work relatively free of any hassle. Wolfgang has managed to combine the worst of all possible licenses here.
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Wolfgang, I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with Richard's comments on the proposed licence. I think that he has some valid points which you don't seem to have understood. Think of it this way: Richard has done a good job with UQLX and has it working on may flavours of Unix, on different platforms and processors. It would benefit the community to SMSQ to have it supported by UQLX, and have Richard's Unixy extensions within it as he has already done for JS and Minerva. However, he does not have continous access to all those platforms, and definitely not all the combinations of interface cards, displays etc they come with. He therefore cannot guarantee support, or to fix problems. He helps where he can, and in the spirit of GNU etc, he makes the information available so that technically advanced users can help themselves. Under the current proposed licence, he cannot operate in this reasonable way. He cannot merely do his best, but he has to give an open-ended commitment to provide support -something that few if any software vendors would do. He isn't even allowed to provide effective support -emailing patches, assistance over the phone of how to hack a config file outlawed by the proposed licence. Furthermore having expended much time and effort -and potentially money if he has to buy hardware, or technical consultancy to enable him to provide the support, you can pull the plug at any time by tearing the licence up. This is not the way to encourage the few souls who are both willing and capable of making SMSQ available and useful to a wider audience to harness their talents to our mutual benefit. I really do urge you to rethink this. Conversely, I would be interested to know how you intend to police the licence; it seems to me to be impossible, so perhaps Richard and others like him need not worry. Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] p.s. Most unix distributions include an emulators package these days. Think how many extra users we might end up with (or ex-users that return) if we could get them to add UQLX +SMSQ etc into that package? Richard, have you tried to interest any of the players in the Linux world in this?
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
... 3/ No distribution of SMSQ/E may be SOLD, except for the official distribution. This interdiction includes that of including and distributing SMSQ/E in Public domain libraries. Official distributions will be sold in compiled (binary) form, possibly together with the official distribution as source code. For such sales, for the time being, two distributors/resellers, namely Jochen MERZ (JMS) and Roy WOOD (QBRANCH) have been appointed by the copyright holder. Resellers provide support for the versions sold by them. ... can you say me how exactly the license requires the resellers to provide support? In our private discussion you went to great lengths to ensure me how they are required to provide support but I can't find absolutely nothing specific about it in this license. Specifically you have promised me that the resellers will be required to fix bugs and hire people for it if they can't do it themselves. Personally I am very disappointed by this license. Lets call things by name. It is not a license but a non-disclosure agreement - why you insist calling it licence is beyound me. You would probably save yourself and others lots of trouble if you would look at some proper commercial NDA. Usually a license would give me some rights, this strange elaborate only gives me the revocable right to read the code. It is also worth noting that the license is subject to change anytime without giving anyone even the slightest guarantees what the next license will look like. This means that anyone who will want to do something with SMSQ will have to seek separate agreements with all other copyright holders, not a pretty situation. The license says the code is copyright TT. This a void claim which only describes the current state. The license is designed to taint SMSQ by 3d party code. There is absolutely no protection against patent traps, the possibility to include code without publicaly available source invites all sorts of copyright trouble and there is also the separate agreements I have mentioned above. The license doesn't say it, but from personal emails with Wolfgang I conclude that there are people who want to write code for SMSQ in exchange for future royalty payments. There is nothing evil about commercial software development but we have a few problems here. There is no choice for the users and other developpers whether they want this 3d party commercial code. A bigger problem here is that some of the developers who want to write SMSQ code for commercial interests also decide about the license, basically this license is their work. For me this is an unfortunate combination, it is a guarantee that SMSQ will never be even close to opensource. Philosophically this is a very interesting concept: People who would like to contribute for free do not even get the right to use their contribution, those who will contribute commercially and seek separate agreements will also receive a share in the decissionmaking of the copyright/licensing as a reward. Interestingly, not all legitimate commercial interests are served equally humbly here. When Peter Graf tried to acquire the right to give away (for free) SMSQ-Q40 binaries in exchange for a substantial payment to TT he was turned down (not because he offered too little money btw). This means that Peter has no means to ensure that SMSQ will be available for the Q40/Q60 in the future - and that after having invested horrendeous amounts of money into SMSQ development for functionality that isn't even implemented until today. Sorry to say but this is just racketeering. Given this precedens it also means that other HW developpers would be completely insane to invest money or effort into SMSQ without special agreements that will only make the overall situation worse. Wolfgang you are welcome to give us your *guarantees* that I am wrong. Last not least, there is the purely practical braindamage of the licence. I did quite frequently write drivers for HW which I didn't have installed myself, with SMSQ I would be required to smail the source changes for each development cycle to someone having the hardware - I am not even allowed to S P E L L the changes over phone line!! Not that I would consider touching the code with a 100 ft pole. If there is 1 good thing about NDA's than its that a closed circle of developers can work relatively free of any hassle. Wolfgang has managed to combine the worst of all possible licenses here. Also the license has interesting holes. Supposedly SMSQ is sold in exchange for giving support, but what is with unfinished products? What happens when there is nobody who would be willing or able to give support and sell SMSQ? I have explained Wolfgang privately why there will never be SMSQ for UQLX with this license. Even if someone does the necessary changes there will be nobody to sell the binary. Neither Jochen Merz nor Roy Wood can not do it -
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Hi all, This is to keep you informed of the state and status of the SMSQ/E source code. The future licence-to-be has been a bit modified, notably to take into account the fact that test versions must be easily distributed. Here is the (still provisional) text. As usual, I invite all of you to comment. I have now received the source code from Tony Tebby, and, as soon as this licence is hammered out and I have had a chance to put everything in order, I'll start sending it out. I'm now taking orders . Official statement == 1/ This software, called 'SMSQ/E', is copyright © Tony TEBBY. Any unauthorized copying or use of the software, whether in binary or source code form, and/or its documentation is prohibited. 2/ SMSQ/E will be made available, as source code only, to any person who so requests it. The request must be made to the registrar, i.e. me. The source code will be sent via CD ROM, thus the request must be accompanied by 3 IRCs, else it will be ignored. The SMSQ/E that will be so made available is the SMSQ/E as it stands NOW. Any future changes/additions/modifications/adaptions to this code may, or may not, be excluded from the offcial release version, since the authors of such changes/additions/modifications/adaptions may state whether they want their source code to be included in the official distribution, or not. 3/ No distribution of SMSQ/E may be SOLD, except for the official distribution. This interdiction includes that of including and distributing SMSQ/E in Public domain libraries. Official distributions will be sold in compiled (binary) form, possibly together with the official distribution as source code. For such sales, for the time being, two distributors/resellers, namely Jochen MERZ (JMS) and Roy WOOD (QBRANCH) have been appointed by the copyright holder. Resellers provide support for the versions sold by them. Except by prior agreement, binary, i.e. compiled, versions of SMSQ/E may not be distributed other than through the distributors. 4/ The registrar, i.e. me, will maintain official distributions of SMSQ/E, in binary and source code form, one for each machine on which SMSQ/E may run. 5/ Any person may make any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions to the source code he feels like. Any person may give away to others the modification 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. This distribution of the source code including the changes/additions/modifications/adaptions made by any author may not be made in electronic form other than on a physical disk. Distribution of the changes/additions may be in binary(compiled) form, provided that the original and/or official version of SMSQ/E, which is copyright © T.Tebby, is not distributed in binary form as well. 6/ Any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions may be proposed by their author(s) to the registrar for inclusion in the official distributions of SMSQ/E. The registrar is not obliged to inclue any proposed changes/additions/modifications/adaptions in official versions. When making such a proposal for inclusion, the author of the changes/additions/modifications/adaptions may state whether his contribution: - is to be distributed in the same way as the official version, or - is to be made only in the compiled (binary) form of the official distribution, or - is to be made alongside, but not included in, the official distribution. Failing such a statement, the inclusion will be contained in the compiled and the source code versions. By submitting code to the registrar, the author agrees to the limitations as set out herein. 7/Authors retain copyright over their changes/additions/modifications/adaptions, but when and by submitting them to the registrar, they explicitly agree that, if they are accepted in any official distribution (under the provisions hereof), they may be included in all other future distributions (in other words, you can't submit something, which is included, and then some months later attempt to withdraw it). By and when submitting proposed changes/additions/modifications/adaptions to the registrar, author(s) of such changes/additions/modifications/adaptions also agree that others may, in the future, bring about changes/additions/modifications/adaptions to the code of any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions such as submitted to the registrar. Copyright of the author(s) of any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions will be acknowledged in the official distribution. 8/ For testing purposes only, authors having made one or several changes/additions/modifications/adaptions of SMSQ/E may, as an exception to the prohibition of distributing code stemming from the official release version in binary
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Mon, 13 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The future licence-to-be has been a bit modified, notably to take into account the fact that test versions must be easily distributed. Here is the (still provisional) text. As usual, I invite all of you to comment. Ok :o) 2/ SMSQ/E will be made available, as source code only, to any person who so requests it. The request must be made to the registrar, i.e. me. The source code will be sent via CD ROM, thus the request must be accompanied by 3 IRCs, else it will be ignored. Never say things likje 'the registrar, i.e. me.' because this means me is the registrar. This is very open to abuse. You would here put a personal or organisation name and contact details. Obviously this is a draft, but this does need correcting. You went on to say: 2/ Authors making additions etc are still prohibited from distributing binary versions of SMSQ/E, even for free. That's not what the license says: 8/ For testing purposes only, authors having made one or several changes/additions/modifications/adaptions of SMSQ/E may, as an exception to the prohibition of distributing code stemming from the official release version in binary form as mentioned above, give away binary version of their code, together with binary versions of SMSQ/E, to not more than 10 persons in total (whatever the number of test versions), provided that the persons receiving these test versions agree to destroy them: - after a period of 2 months, or - at the time the changes/additions/modifications/adaptions for the test version are included in the official release version, or - when they are notified by the author that a stable version is now available whatever comes first. There. Software developers are explicitly allowed to distribute beta/test versions as listed above. However, the way this is currently structured is open to abuse. May I suggest a small change here? Limit distribution of beta/test versions to only those who a) are already entitled by license to posess a copy and b) are actively involved in testing or debugging the software. This will allow genuine distribution, but prevent distribution on a friendly basis. Finally, I strongly advise a change to the structure of the document now that the content is almost there ;o) I would recommend defining Licensor, Licensed Distributor, Licensed Developer and Licensed User as all have different rights and restrictions placed on them by the above license. If you would like, I would be happy to assist you privately to do this, without changing either the intent or the specifics of the license as it now stands... Dave
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Sorry, it might be long. I will try to [snip] what I do not want to discuss. [EMAIL PROTECTED] makes some magical things to make me read } Hi all, } } This is to keep you informed of the state and } status of the SMSQ/E source code. } } The future licence-to-be has been a bit } modified, notably to take into account the fact } that test versions must be easily distributed. } Here is the (still provisional) text. As usual, } I invite all of you to comment. } } I have now received the source code from Tony } Tebby, and, as soon as this licence is hammered } out and I have had a chance to put everything in } order, I'll start sending it out. I'm now taking } orders. Good! but I think you need an appendix which states: - Who is the registar - What is the address of the registar - Who are the distributors/resellors (address and more also) This way, you do not have to touch the statements when things change. } } Official statement } == } } } 1/ This software, called 'SMSQ/E', is copyright } © Tony TEBBY. I know you have better understanding of laws than me, but I've always been told that: - Copyright without a date is void. (How else would I get a chance to wait for it to expire...) - Copyright is only for USA, there is different protection in Europ (including the Bern convention which acknoledge the US copyright). Specifically, the statements should reserve all the rights excepted the ones already mentionned. (Just in case I want to make a movie out of the SMSQ/E, currently, nothing stop me from: - adapting - broadcasting the play - making DVD of the play - distributing DVD of the play - ... ) [SNIP] } } 2/ SMSQ/E will be made available, as source code } only, to any person who so requests it. The } request must be made to the registrar, i.e. } me. As I said, Put the 'i.e. me' in an appendix. And provide your postal address too! The post office should get a visit soon. [SNIP] } Except by prior } agreement, binary, i.e. compiled, versions of } SMSQ/E may not be distributed other than through } the distributors. Ok, That should fix the 'beta' distribution! But there is later contradiction. } } } 4/ The registrar, i.e. me, will maintain } official distributions of SMSQ/E, in binary and } source code form, one for each machine on which } SMSQ/E may run. That's define the obligations of the registrar, but that's does not forbid someone else from doing the same. Well, at least the resellors might also provide support, but probably not debugging/correction ? } } 5/ Any person may make any } changes/additions/modifications/adaptions to the } source code he feels like. Any person may give } away to others the modification 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. Good, there is nevertheless no obligation to distribute the original source along with the change... I'm afraid of the distribution of 'patched' sources only, with divergent patches... Integration nightmare ? } } This distribution of the source code including } the changes/additions/modifications/adaptions } made by any author may not be made in electronic } form other than on a physical disk. Ok, no web, no email, no ftp, no BBS, no ...; What's a disk ? floppy or CD ? would a Syquest elect ? what about a Zip ? and a sinclair microdrive ? a DVD-R ? What about QL network ? even via sernet ? } } Distribution of the changes/additions may be in } binary(compiled) form, provided that the } original and/or official version of SMSQ/E, } which is copyright © T.Tebby, is not distributed } in binary form as well. } There is restriction on the distribution of the source, but I do not read there is such for the binary. Moreover, the binary distribution seems to be allowed until a ressellors make available an official versions (without or with the change). Was the intend to allow the distribution of a modified binary by someone, as long as this someone does not also provide the original or official version in binary too ? [Pervert distribution: I change the default background to be blue instead of black, and that's the only change, therefore I'm allowed to charge big money for distribution of the binary, or even to distribute the new binary on the web!] Currently, the modified source is free and protected, the modified binary need more restriction (at least for free and distribution means) or I need confirmation about my silly thoughts. } } 6/ Any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions } may be proposed by their author(s) to the } registrar for inclusion in the official } distributions of SMSQ/E. Adding also in Appendix how such proposal should be made. (expected format, will you give a confirmation, and so on) [SNIP] } When making
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 13 May 2002, at 16:04, Jerome Grimbert wrote: Good! but I think you need an appendix which states: - Who is the registar - What is the address of the registar - Who are the distributors/resellors (address and more also) yes of course, you're right, at least as far as the registrar goes - the reseller list can evolve perhaps more easily (unless you all vote me out of the office...). } Official statement } == } } } 1/ This software, called 'SMSQ/E', is copyright } © Tony TEBBY. I know you have better understanding of laws than me, but I've always been told that: - Copyright without a date is void. (How else would I get a chance to wait for it to expire...) - Copyright is only for USA, there is different protection in Europ (including the Bern convention which acknoledge the US copyright). Specifically, the statements should reserve all the rights excepted the ones already mentionned. (Just in case I want to make a movie out of the SMSQ/E, currently, nothing stop me from: - adapting - broadcasting the play - making DVD of the play - distributing DVD of the play - ... Umm yes; the probability of anybody making a play out of SMSQ/E is pretty small though ... :-). As to the Copyright, yes the date will be there, and, despite the Berne Convention and the way copyright is handled in some european countries, it still is better to add the sign... As I said, Put the 'i.e. me' in an appendix. And provide your postal address too! The post office should get a visit soon. Good! And of course I shall! Ok, That should fix the 'beta' distribution! But there is later contradiction. Contradiction? I'd prefer exception. An exception to a rule is no contradiction (unless you want to get all philosophical now...). That's define the obligations of the registrar, but that's does not forbid someone else from doing the same. Well, at least the resellors might also provide support, but probably not debugging/correction ? Well - support! As for somebody else doing the same, the licence explicitly allows you to distribute the source code, so no problem there. Good, there is nevertheless no obligation to distribute the original source along with the change... I'm afraid of the distribution of 'patched' sources only, with divergent patches... Integration nightmare ? Ah - but there is only one Official distribution at any moment in time. I do NOT want to stop people from diddling with the code if they want to. Ok, no web, no email, no ftp, no BBS, no ...; What's a disk ? floppy or CD ? would a Syquest elect ? what about a Zip ? and a sinclair microdrive ? a DVD-R ? What about QL network ? even via sernet ? I think that I can reasonably say that a disk is ...a disk. I do not think that we would really have much difficuly in deciding whether something is a disk ornot. There is restriction on the distribution of the source, but I do not read there is such for the binary. It says somewhere that you can't deistribute the binaries of SMSQ/E - period (with the test version exception). Now, if you write an extension to the OS in such a way that it can be distributed alone, why should this be concerned by the SMSQ/E licence ? - let's take Thierry Godefroy's CD driver as an example. It is a simple file that can be LRESPR'D - so why should it be covered by the SMSQ/E licence? TG can do whetever he likes with it. On the other hand, if it were integreted into the OS, then it would come within the scope of the licence. But, if TG has the SMSQ/E codes, perhaps the can make his own driver even better (if this were possible :-)) or suggest/implement changes to the OS (e.g. Open calls, thierry???) that makes his code better. Moreover, the binary distribution seems to be allowed until a ressellors make available an official versions (without or with the change). No.. Was the intend to allow the distribution of a modified binary by someone, as long as this someone does not also provide the original or official version in binary too ? As long as nothing of SMSQ/E itself is also distributed. [Pervert distribution: I change the default background to be blue instead of black, and that's the only change, therefore I'm allowed to charge big money for distribution of the binary, or even to distribute the new binary on the web!] No that won't work. May I quote: Except by prior agreement, binary, i.e. compiled, versions of SMSQ/E may not be distributed other than through the distributors. There is an exception for testing versions, that's it. Currently, the modified source is free and protected, the modified binary need more restriction (at least for free and distribution means) or I need confirmation about my silly thoughts. :-) I hope the above is clear enough? } 6/ Any changes/additions/modifications/adaptions } may be proposed by their author(s) to the }
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 13 May 2002, at 13:44, Dave wrote: Never say things likje 'the registrar, i.e. me.' because this means me is the registrar. This is very open to abuse. You would here put a personal or organisation name and contact details. Obviously this is a draft, but this does need correcting. Sure - this is why this isn't the licence yet. (snip) binary distribution. There. Software developers are explicitly allowed to distribute beta/test versions as listed above. ..as an exception to the rule, as is explicitly stated - sure. I seem to remember this was inspired by you. :-) However, the way this is currently structured is open to abuse. May I suggest a small change here? Limit distribution of beta/test versions to only those who a) are already entitled by license to posess a copy and b) are actively involved in testing or debugging the software. This will allow genuine distribution, but prevent distribution on a friendly basis. I thought about that, but there were two arguments that dissuaded me from it: If you develop new hardware, the tester may not have a legitimate copy of SMSQ/E yet - since it runs on new hardware... Some testers are only users - they are great testers, but are they actively involved (try to define that!!!) ? Finally, I strongly advise a change to the structure of the document now that the content is almost there ;o) I would recommend defining Licensor, Licensed Distributor, Licensed Developer and Licensed User as all have different rights and restrictions placed on them by the above license. Yup. If you would like, I would be happy to assist you privately to do this, without changing either the intent or the specifics of the license as it now stands... Or even publicly! I have absolutely no qualms about accepting help from all of you! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 8 Apr 2002, at 15:52, Richard Zidlicky wrote: don't say it will be open source then - it won't. True. Forget those who have seen this as a great chance for SMSQ. I still see it as such. You can still get the code, you can still make changes, you can still dustribute your changes in source code form. TT was ready to make available his treasure for *free* - and this is what comes out. Really pretty.. there was so little missing to make this a perfect world. Instead it turns into disaster. I entirely disagree, of course. This is no disaster. It is a different way to distributing it completely open, yes. You may be surprised that I perceive the situation so negative, it is because I assume we can hardly expect TT to do any work on SMSQ in the future and I am now pretty curious to see who who will work for free under this license. I will, if my job as registrar leaves me the time. Perhaps others will, as well. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 26 Mar 2002, at 21:34, Timothy Swenson wrote: (...) 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. Well of course, if you don't distribute SMSQ/E with your change (say it is a simple patch you LRESPR) how could I interfere with that? I have no rights whatsoever to your code. 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. NO - same reply as above 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. Boooh! 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. This is great news! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 26 Mar 2002, at 21:58, Richard Zidlicky wrote: 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. Yes, sure there is - why shouldn't they become resellers? (testing problems) This is one point I'lm taking more time on. But you WILL get a reply. 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 ?;). Some will, some won't.The fact is that if people can get binaries for free, they will - AND then badger the resellers for advice. YES THEY WILL! 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. I agree. But then, we're not concerned that much about the thieves, but the vast majority of people who are honest. And, withing the QL community -as it is now- people are honest. (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. It will be there. Bye Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:34:31AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (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. It will be there. don't say it will be open source then - it won't. Forget those who have seen this as a great chance for SMSQ. I don't say it has to be GPL, but this doesn't make it. TT was ready to make available his treasure for *free* - and this is what comes out. Really pretty.. there was so little missing to make this a perfect world. Instead it turns into disaster. You may be surprised that I perceive the situation so negative, it is because I assume we can hardly expect TT to do any work on SMSQ in the future and I am now pretty curious to see who who will work for free under this license. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
At 07:09 ìì 27/3/2002, you wrote: Great stuff! Thanks to all who brought it about, not least of all TT himself! At last the mysteries unveiled and we'll be in control of our own destiny. This could be a new beginning - or the way to dusty death. Only time will tell. Yes, the main benefit of opening up the sources would be the ability to understand how SMS does the things it does, which may or may not lead to an ability to at last write drivers for devices we couldn't before... The nitty-gritty of the license agreement has to be clarified. I cant imagine that its purpose was to be obstructive in any way to legitimate development. The intention must be to avoid turning SMSQ/E into 1) a mess 2) a goldmine for the undeserving 3) Linux/E 4) WinDOS 5) Qdos a la DP (they figured Qdos wasnt entirely compatible (!) (and it shows)) Hehe... Yes.. one of the major benefits of SMSQ/E against both Linux and Windows is that it is very concise... although for several programs out there to run, extensions are needed, this is far from the bloat both Windows (and unfortunately Linux) impose on you in order to run one simple application.. (Now if someone tells me that you can put Linux on one disk or even less... i'll respond... yes and try to run the GiMP on it! :-) (Nuff said!)... ProWesS for example can fit in under 3 Mb's (two disks) and can actually run on one... Take that Windows! Not even Win 286 could do that (4 x 1.2Mb disks iirc) IMHO the OS should be kept lean and mean, and not be bloated with everyone's pet add-ons, a la Windoze. It should be the kernel of what is required to run systems utilities, extensions and programs across a variety of different platforms. Thus PI should be in, but why Wman? Things should be in, but why Hotkeys? If these non-essential add-ons, and others yet to be written, were kept separate, each author could decide on his own policy of distribution to fit the case (and users whether they wanted them). System utilities and extensions that are generally useful across platforms and fall in with the general ethos and style could be kept together with, but separate from the SMSQ/E source tree. True but I do believe that you can still include a fully functional gui AND utilities AND APIs all included in a concise and tight code base... Platform-specific developers would see to it that SMSQ/E would load and run on their platform. Utilities to exploit specifics of that platform should be included only for that platform (as an SMSQ module) while basic tests for those facilities should be available for all platforms to make application developer's lives easier. Eg, the likes of MACHINE, PROCESSOR, HOSTOS, EMULATOR and DISP_TYPE (and their m/c equivalents) should be available across ALL SMSQ/E and Qdos-like systems so that application programs can take necessary action without having to peek and poke around the system variables and Thing lists. There are certain core functions that would benefit all platforms, eg slaving and the native file system, as well as some of the discussed improvements to PI and many more. But whos going to handle those, as they wont necessarily promote anyone's pet platform? (I hope Marcel hasnt lost heart after that nasty little attack the other day.) I do believe that a sensible discussion on what should and what shouldn't be included in v.3 of SMSQ/E must be conducted as well as a reflection on what the route to the future should be... (Maybe the PowerPC??? ;-) Many things NEED to be changed like for example the archaic file system must give way to a POSIX type one either by a direct replacement or by a third-party extension (kinda like Thierry's CD driver), but in any case two of the MOST pressing changes for the platform would be the incorporation of a set of strong graphics capabilities (steps towards which have been taken with the introduction of the colour drivers maybe a software blitter or Wolfgang's scrolling extensions are good candidates too) and the replacement of the IO mechanism with one allowing the easier development of drivers for devices block or otherwise And that leads me on to my last point, which is that there are a lot of petty jealousies and tensions in our tiny (but dynamic!) backwater of the world which if left unchecked will lead to no end of mischief and could endanger the whole project. I suggest the list-moderator take culprits, who are rude, hurl abuse, throw tantrums and slam doors, or make unsubstantiated accusations, severely to task. A second offence should lead to immediate suspension or worse, depending on the gravity of the offence. This business is not only technical and social, it is very important to a lot of us and we should guard it vigilantly! I totally agree and for an extra reason (see previous -not-so-nice- emails by yours truly) True to this and for my part (and my disagreement with Richard) I am happy to say that's all in the past now... explanations exchanged and the
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
In message 00e101c1d5ed$82778180$0100a8c0@gamma, P Witte [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes BIG SNIP I think you just said it all ! -- 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
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 !)...
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
