...
> 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
- because they lack the possibility to do any sort of support
for Unix platforms they can't sell it. Just a quick estimate,
they would have to support at least 15 different Unix platforms
and OS/2 running an interesting variety of CPU's. I've never
even seen all of them myself.
I assume this situation pretty much serves the commercial
interests of those who created this license because certainly
Wolfgang was informed about the problem and had the possibility
to solve it. Who cares whether a few hundred users are locked
out.
Richard
PS: Wolfgang has informed me that he considers disassembling
SMSQ binaries illegal. I found this rather amusing after
attempting for over 2 years to support SMSQ and finding
workarounds for a few SMSQ bugs by disassembling it.
I will comply by removing all workarounds for bugs and
deficiencies in SMSQ from my programs.
PS2: please keep the 'cc: ql-developers' as I suspect quite
a few developpers don't read this list regularly
