If your estimate for getting the source is accurate then I would not think that is good value. If it was an order of magnitude less then it would probably be worthwhile so that QMAC could be updated.
In terms of the QMAC binary version does Quanta have to restrict itself to providing it to Quanta members? As the main use of QMAC is likely to be someone who wants to work on SMSQE then providing it to anyone who expresses a need for it is likely to be in the interests of Quanta members I would have thought? Anyone starting a new assembler project from scratch is more likely to use GWASS or GWASS Lite as they are both free and supported. Dave -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Gilpin Sent: 11 April 2007 23:54 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] QMAC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Mellor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] QMAC > On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:20:43 +0100, John Gilpin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Following recent suggestions, I have been investigating the feasibility >> of >> purchasing a suitable license from the Software house that we currently >> pay >> royalties to for the software QMAC and QLinker. Although they have not >> ruled >> out the possibility of supplying us a license to cover 'indefinite sales >> for >> a one time fee', they have warned me that due to the passage of time, the >> source code has been archived and it would be extremely expensive to >> retrieve it. >> >> Can I ask those of you who were interested in this software to advise me >> if >> the source code is necessarily required or should I continue with my >> negotiations as outlined above without the source code being provided? >> >> Incidentally, their C.E.O. compliments us all on supporting the Sinclair >> QL >> for over 20 years. >> >> Best regards to all, >> > > Many thanks for investigating this - it would be interesting to know the > cost of the one-off licence and the cost of retrieving the source codes. It's not the cost of the license that's important but whether the money is being well spent. Hyperthetically, if it costs us £100 to make the software freely available to Quanta members, this is the equivalent of 20 copies at the £5 royalty fee. Are 20 members really interested in this software (only ONE reply to my query to date) Regarding the search fee for the source code, I suspect that if it takes a week to find, there won't be much change out of say £2,500 to £3,000. How long is that piece of string? > However, with tools such as DEAssembler and the knowledge within the QL > world, there may be no need to actually obtain the sources. After all, > all we really want this free assembler for is to allow easy compiling of > the smsq/e sources. > Well, that's the impression I got, but after a month or so, nearly everyone has forgotten about asking QUANTA to spend some money on their behalf so are they really interested? Where are all those software experts who wanted to upgrade SMSQ but needed the tools to do it with. QUANTA ARE interested in your requests (members and non-members alike) but please don't throw down the gauntlet then run away and hide. - TALK TO US. Please. Regards, John Gilpin.(Treasurer) pp QUANTA Committee. > -- > Rich Mellor > RWAP Services > URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk > URL:http://www.rwapservices.co.uk > > _______________________________________________ > QL-Users Mailing List > http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
