Rich Mellor wrote: > The email from Nasta was dated December 2006. > > The etherIDE would be a good project - the main problem would most > definitely be the lack of a TCP/IP stack and drivers. > Alas Peter Graf knows how to implement this, but cannot see eye to eye on > the SMSQ/e licence - perhaps it is a language problem, as I do not see > what the actual problem is with the need to include open source code in > the operating system. > I think the problem here is that no one can build or use SMSQ without actually buying a license to do so. Yes the source is available to download but unless you're already running SMSQ it's not actually possible to compile it.
Thanks to people on this list I'm now in possession of all I need to build SMSQ, I decided to have a go while I was at work. I then realised that I didn't have a copy of SMSQ available to me there (I do at home) and therefore because the source relies on the DEV device being available (which as far as I can see is only available in SMSQ itself) I once again hit a brick wall. Open source software generally is useable on open source software without any commercial pre requisites. > The only charges now made for smsq/e are equivalent in many ways to the > charges made for copies of Linux and limitations on the distribution of > that, yet I do not see arguments over the various Linux distributions > available. > The difference here is that there are also binary copies of virtually all linux distributions available for free download. > Maybe something on the free GPL licence that is stopping Peter from > thinking he can distribute his work is beyond me. After all, Red Hat Linux > is not free, does not come complete with sources and tools to let you > compile it, yet people are happy to write free software under the GPL > licence for it and new items, which can be incorporated into Red Hat. Yes > I understand that the distributors charge for support - but come on, does > the end user see any real difference between paying £x00 for Red Hat > Linux, and paying £x0 for smsq/e? Both have readily available sources > which can be downloaded and compiled, IF you have the right tools. > Yes, there is a charge for Redhat (but only the Enterprise version these days) but that mostly covers a 24x7 support arrangement. The source is available for all Redhat packages - it's in fact included in the distribution. Yes, there is a huge difference between SMSQ and Linux, as I've discovered I can't compile the sources for SMSQ without spending money on a semi commercial assembler. If I wanted to I could download a new kernel for my linux machine at any time, compile it with a freely available copy of GCC - compiled by myself from source - and then install that kernel on any machine I wanted to - completely legally and without restriction. I think the major difference is that software for Linux can be developed and compiled on any distribuition of Linux, it is then compatible with all distros assuming GCC versions are comparable. Incidentally, Redhat does come with GCC and all the tools necessary to completely recompile every single piece of software that's included in the binary distribution. I'm not sure that there is a direct conflict between the SMSQ license and GPL, except for the fact that the GPL does include the provision for binary distributions as long as source is included. Whether there is anything stopping someone from branching the SMSQ source I don't know - the way I read the license is that unless you are an official distributor you are not allowed to distribute binaries, and the published license (in the latest source tree I downloaded a couple of days ago) still states that a fee must be paid to Tony Tebby for every binary given to a new customer. I know that it's been said on this list that this is not now the case but it's still in the license. I am an open source developer with software published under GPL (http://www.remosync.org for anyone that's interested) - the GPL gives people a huge advantage in that anyone can use a piece of code that's published under GPL in their own projects as long as the resulting software is also released under GPL. My own code includes some modified checksum routines that I probably would never have been able to write on my own - these came from the cksum command freely available as source under GPL. I myself would like to see a completely open source, freely compilable operating system for the QL - but I honestly don't see it happening. I'm sure after some of my recent emails that a lot of you are thinking I'm just after everything for nothing - this isn't the case. I have QL hardware that I've had for ages and I'd like to contribute to the continuation of a wonderful machine. Every which way I turn though someone wants money from me that I haven't got at the moment. I know I've mentioned it before but take a look at the Spectrum community, there is new software available for the spectrum and people are selling it - usually for about £2.99. I know that the QL is a different beast and that programming for it is massively more complicated but can we really justify selling software for such elevated prices as is currently the case? Most of the traders have admitted that they aren't going to make any money from the QL anymore, anyone developing software for it would be mad to think they are going to make a profit in such a small market. I can understand the idea of supporting traders that have supported us users over the years but I really think it's time to face facts, the QL is very much a minority machine and charging high prices for software is just going to make it more inaccessible than it already is. I actually wonder whether my idea of attempting to port SMSQ to the Amiga is even going to be worthwile. I can't distribute a binary, which means that I'd only be able to distribute source - which without creating a completely seperate branch I couldn't do because it's only possible to actually compile it with an assembler that's only available for the QL and then only if you buy it. Fortunately I'll still attempt it because I want to know if it's possible - even though it'll take a huge amount of work and I know I'm effectively doing it for nothing. In essence that is the point of open source software - working for the good of others without personal gain - and that's something that the QL community as a whole needs to embrace. If we don't then the QL will disappear completely. I'll get off my high horse now! Once again apologies for the long email - I'm sure you're all getting sick of me by now but I hope that at least some good will come from my rantings! Phil _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
