Hi all,

I'm not saying anything here as personal opinion - I am playing devil's 
advocate for the sake of creating a little controversy, which will 
hopefully result in some discussion. At the moment there is too much 
agreement. :o)

Ok... Deep breath...

The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents 
growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. 
If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably 
illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each 
country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller.

The decision to not allow any charging for sources is being rationalised 
by you folks as a good thing (taxes, etc). It forces the sources to be 
distributed by some free means only, ie the internet, and prevents it 
being distributed by PB/shareware libraries unless they make special 
arrangements. These arrangements more than double the length of time it 
would take a recipient to get a copy of the sources.

The decision to not allow distribution of binaries is very restrictive to 
the point of being obstructive. I would propose the refinement to the 
license, stating object code/binaries cannot be distributed to the general 
public, and may only be shared at no cost for the purposes of beta 
testing, or for producing custom versions for specific hardware. It would 
otherwise restrict development and, combined with the clause mentioned 
above, testing, of the code.

If only the official tree can be sold, how does a hardware manufacturer 
who produces a custom version of SMSQ/E for XXX hardware include it in 
ROM? He can offer to make payment of a license fee, but under this 
license, it doesn't matter, it can't be distributed in binary form, or for 
a fee. This removes any incentive for a developer to actually adapt SMSQ 
to specific hardware, forcing us to stay with the hardware we already 
have.

I hope the four points above are lucid and explain the difficulties they 
cause.

Looking for some more lively discussion.

</devil's advocate>

Dave


Reply via email to