On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:18:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 21 May 2002, at 23:38, Jeremy Taffel wrote: > > > Because instead of answering in a civil an unemotional way you get provoked > > into escalating the flame wars, and often don't address the legitimate (in > > their minds) concerns of some of those that ry to debate this. > > What kind of reaction do you expect when I'l being called a > racketeer? (not by you!)
do you really think I called you a racketeer? If that is your impression than I am sorry but I don't think I have written this and I will of course clarify it in more detail if you wish. > (At least I'm not aware of any major bug in SMSQ/E as it stands > now - and please peole, I'm talking about bugs, not missing > features!). there are a few, to the point that the OS is almost unusable in some situations. > > I was making a serious point and received an unwaranted (in my opinion) > > sarcastic glib response. This really is not necessary. > > I didn't mean to offend you. The reply wasn't meant to be sarcastic, > but reflects what I understood from your posting. > > However, the problem remains: How do you implement any kind of > bugfix scheme in something like SMSQ/E if it becomes entirely > free? Then there is no legal relationship whatsoever. Linux also works without any legal relationship. Considering how many features it has over SMSQ it works quite well. > However, > many users require support. Hence the restriction on distributing > the binaries. wrong answer to the problem. If users require support sell them support contracts. Should be actually much more lucrative for the now resellers. > (snip) > > UQLX is distributed as source, and in my experience most if not all Linux > > users are familiar with make-files. So lets see.. > > provided the developer provides the necessary compiler/cross-compiler and > > makefile(s) for the platform, he can freely distribute it as a set of source > > files. Sounds like open source to me. Only leaves the problem of how to get > > you to accept it into an official version (don't flame -see later comments). > > See above - if they can compile it, then they are probably > sufficiently "advanced" to tinker with the system. There is > ABSOLUTELY no problem in distributing the source code in this > way - the restriction lies in the distribution of the binaries. there is a *big* problem if I am supposed to pay 10 Euro p&p for each user I wish to supply with sources. Have I misunderstood that part of the license? > > > That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? > > > > > But what's to stop you? > > Nothing. But, again, I don't see why one should suddenly change a > licence that we have had so much trouble in setting up in the first > place. That would only lead to outcries and rejections sure it would. Merely the possibility that it could happen is enough to turn me away. > I don't know what other reassurances than those I have (vainly, it > seems) tried to give here in the past I could still give you. I cannot, > and will not, guarantee that nothing will never change, to do so > would be absurd. > I can only state that I still intend to make sure that every platform > on which SMSQ/E runs now will continue to have up to date > sources (and this binaries). ok, than add this as a preamble or something into the license. Otherwise there is nothing in the license that would suggest this, quite on the contrary the license leaves a few dangerous holes in that direction. > I thus see it as my main work to try to make sure that this doesn't > happen. ALL OF THE REST, including this debate about the > licence, is, to my mind, pretty much secondary - but it does show > how deep the feelings run, and how difficult my job will be made > because of them. it is because one of the "camps" apparently dictated the licence entirely to their liking and you aren't very open about it. Ban the possibility of added roaylty payments or special agreements, add the comitment not to lock out platforms, remove the useless restrictions about source and binary distribution and things will look completely different. > As to acting in an inclusive manner, I'm not sure what you mean by > that. Do yo mean that I will try to include all proposed changes into > SMSQ/E? YOU BET I WILL. I can go on record here for that. > > But, to be quite honest, I must also state something that will > probably make Richard howl with dispair: I don't believe that I will > get many contributions. saddly I am afraid you migt be right, unless you will clarify the licence to be acceptable to more people. > I also belive that most contributions I will > get will be from MArkus Kingus, who has a record of supporting, at > least, QPC, and also SMSQ/E. > I WOULD LIKE TO BE PROVED WRONG! Oh boy, how I would > like to be proved wrong. > Bit I have had, until now, not one single suggestion of what > anybody would actually attempt to change (not what they would > like to see changed, but what they would guarantee that they > would change). I would try to sort out some of the filesystem and harddisk related bugs, implement support for 64,80,128MB and look how to cleanup chache handling on the Q40/Q60. > > However, I am an eternal optimist, and I do hope that a compromise can be > > found which will enable us to keep (get back) all our hardware and software > > developers - We just cannnot afford to lose them. > This is a question far from rhetorical: Have we lost them (in the > sense that they would have been there otherwise?). there is probably a reason that many developpers turned away from QDOS/SMSQ. > > I personally believe that if those had been addressed early on, the paranoia > > would not have set in. > > I'm not sure about that. paranoia doesn't need reasons to set in - > not that I'm accusing anyone of it: You have been extremely hesitant to clarify very important parts (or omissions) of the license - like the question of future royalty payments. This is excellent food for paranoia, apparently you don't even realise how horrified the average open source "user" is by the prospects given by your licence. Richard
