>> If Peter feels he could go to such trouble, one way forward would >> be >> to supply his QLWIP (I hope that's what it was called) as a module, >> which could be linked to SMSQ/E for example. That way he couldn't >> be >> accused of putting "free" stuff into commercial programs. > > I'm not sure that ispossible right now, because from what I > understood > from Peter, the OS itself must be adapted, so that, apparently, a > simple > bolt-on approach isn't good enough. OK, that's nailed that idea.
> The situation seems to be that Peter wants to have the licence > rewritten > the way he wants it, and that is just not going to happen. Yes, this was the sort of thing I meant when talking about insurmountable problems. > Concerning the specific problems he seems to encounter with his > TCP/IP > stuff, if I understood correctly, the OS must contain some hooks or > other in which to put his code. > I presume, though that the changes are a bit farther-ranging, > perhaps > some modifications to the scheduler? > I just don't know. > I do propose the following though: If Peter tells me exactly what > changes he wants made in the OS, perhaps I could try to make them if > they seem feasable (and if I'm good enough). That would seem to be one way forward. > Perhaps once this is done, Peter could release a stand-alone > application? > This way, he wouldn't need to release anything to do with smsq/e > istelf. > Wolfgang Thank you for making this offer, Wolfgang, I do hope Peter will at least discuss this. I do actually understand what he is saying about the preference for a "free" OS and I can also see what you are saying about the licence situation above. I hope everyone concerned can find some common middle ground. Once we know what changes are required, there may be hope of finding a common middle ground. -- Dilwyn Jones _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
