Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > > 4. Distribution of SMSQ/E executables for free was forbidden. This changes > > everything. It shows other passages of the "license" in a different light. > > The combination now means, that non-commercial contributors no longer get > > any rights from this "license", except the revocable right to see a > > vanishing snapshot of the code (***). > >There is no difference betwwen c�mmerecial and no commercial >developpers in this licence.
I just stated they no longer get any rights from this "license", except the revocable right to see a vanishing snapshot of the code. Which is true. > > The situation for Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E: Tony Tebby was our only *commercial* > > developer. >for OS work, yes. Yes. I said SMSQ/E which is an OS. What else are you talking about? > > These non-commercial authors would like to participate in development! For > > example, there are developers interested to implement 128 MB RAM support, > > harddisk improvements (>4 GB), slaveblock solution, cache handling, better > > MMU usage, network support, 68k FPU support for SMSQ/E and so on. The ONLY > > REASON why they can NOT do do the work for SMSQ/E is this "license", which > > locks them out. > >This is simply not true. This is simply true. ARE YOU SAYING WE WOULD NOT WORK, e.g. under an OpenSource license ??? >The ONLY reason they do not work under this licence is THAT THEY DON4T >WANT TO work under this licence. Do I bid their wrists? Do I threaten them >with death ? Do I >stop them from working with this code? No, they have decided that >this licence is not aceptable for them. Fine. But DON'T say that >they CAN'T work under this luicence. They "CAN WORK" only if they agree their executables are lost, abused, or sold for unknown money, at conditions that may change anytime. That's what the "license" allows. A GREAT OPPORTUNITY :-(((((( >> If a contribution is "accepted" by the registrar, the license leaves > > completely open what will happen to the executable code of a contribution. >No it doesn't - if it falls within the binaries, it falls within the scope >of the licence. Of course it does. I repeat for you: The "license" allows everything to happen to the executables, including complete loss, sales for unknown money, no sales at all, loss for some platforms only, virtually everything that an author needs to know. An author can only KNOW what will happen it if he makes separate agreements with resellers outside this license. Sure your commercial author already has this agreements with your resellers. > > All this also makes the "rights" concerning test versions completely void. > > Your executable code may be lost or abused, as soon as it is "accepted". >Yes, I often abuse code. Wolfgang, I was not personal. I only criticise this socalled "license". I'm sure your decisions about inclusions of code into the source tree will work allright. I was not talking about the source tree, or code generation, but about *availabilty* of executables. > > If my fears about the results of this "license" are just paranoia, why not > > include rights for the non-commercial developers? >Why have two sets of rights? Haven't said two sets of rights. If you want rights for the non-commercial developers simply include them. Or, maybe easier, use an existing wellknown license that takes care of all this. And let us start working. Peter
