On 19 May 2002, at 7:50, Dexter wrote:
> > As a developer, one would expect to be kept up-to-date with the latest > sources automatically. To expect developers to do so by mail, at their own > expense, when there are instant methods available that incur no expense > and enhance communication between the various developers is indeed a > needless restriction. I'm think about a way to make things easier. In Eindhoven, it was agreed not to let the sources be put onto Websites, to retain some semblance of control over them, because we don't want too many "shareware" sources to float around. If then you allow in distribution via E-mail, well yo know how easy it is to set up a website that sends yo the sources via email as soon as you make the request on the web page - and hey presto, you cincumvented the non dtsiribution over a website interdiction... Peter Graf and I do not exactly see eye to eye. We have agreed to disagree > when it comes to developing hardware for the Qx0. However, I must stand up > 100% in support for him. The resellers do not wish to sell a Qx0 version > of SMSQ. The only way for them to supply Qx0 in this situation is to > become resellers themselves. This is a distraction from what they're > trying to do. Also, they may not be qualified, or may consider other > development tasks more pressing, than supporting SMSQ users. Now, let's see. if I buy a Q40/Q60 today, this comes with SMSQE. So the person selling it (d&d?) is a reseller. Why not simply continue? To whom will a buyer of the software/hardware turn, anyway? To the person they bought the set from! > If I end up handling hardware sales, would I have to become an SMSQ > reseller? I'm not qualified. But if the resellers declined to offer the > ZYXABC version of SMSQ (as they have done with the Qx0) I would have no > choice but to find someone who can do it, and add those support costs to > the cost of the product. Notwithstanding that I would have to keep > requesting and paying for current sources just to stay in tune. You don'y pay for sources. You pay everytime you sell the binaries. Even as a hardware seller, you lust give support for your product, mluist you not? If you sell the hardware/software combo, you are just as responsible as if selling the softwarre separately. Where will the people get the software from, if not from the ahrdware seller initially? You would have this responsibility to your users, as a hardware seller, even if the OS was free. > I think any reseller should be required to provide all versions of SMSQ or > none at all. I don't agree. it's a free world. > Anyway, the situation is not a happy one. There are two main hardware > developers who would need to include SMSQ with a new product. D&D, and the > Goldfire outfit. D&D appears to be sidelined out of SMSQ, Why? Have they even asked to become resellers? Not to my knowledge. > and if I were > selling Goldfires I would be sidelined too, just because of the > development hurdles being thrown down before me. Exactly what development hurdles are these? in what way does the licence make the development more difficulut for you? On the contray, you have access to the sources, now! > Now, what is the objective of this license? To attempt to let thoise interested have a look at the sources, and, if they want, do something with them. Wolfgang ----------------- www.wlenerz.com
