In message <005701c20459$18d4e0c0$07240150@taff2>, Jeremy Taffel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >I think that everyone realises that they are not going to enough money out >this for it to amount to anything other than a labour of love. However there >is a concern that this labour will go to waste if the restrictions behind >the licence reduce the user base beneath its potential. Wolfgang, you do not >think there are any new users to be had, and you want to ensure continuing >support to the current band whereas Richard thinks that the user base could >be doubled in a year, but won't be under the proposed licence. I think we >should think positively and explore the potential for new users. Whilst I still use and get a lot of pleasure out of my QL I cannot see what would tempt a user of a modern system into taking up the QL. True you can program your own stuff in BASIC very easily and it is a compact system but most of the user base consists of people who have been involved with it for years. There few who have joined us over the last few years but I do not think this is because SMSQ/E is not freely available. For what I know of it UQLX is a very good and well programmed emulator. Would it double in it user base if it had SMSQ/E ? I don't think so. Who outside the QL community knows the difference between QDOS and SMSQ/E and, after several years of its operation, I still have QL people ask me what the difference is. Lets not get too excited about a hypothetical increase in users. > > Wolfgang, you are convinced that you are acting in the interests of the >community, and will act in a reasonable way to include all developers and >flavours of platform, but for your assurances to be worth anything, you >need to be trusted. Unfortunately, from what has been seen, the Grafs have >been warring with Roy for some time and Roy's apparent alignment with you >means that there is no trust in that quarter. I do not have any more influence over Wolfgang's decisions than anyone else. Are you implying there is some sort of cabal here ? Many of my own suggestion have been turned down just as strictly. >This is obviously a split we >can ill afford, and I feel that although it should not be necessary, it is >in our interest to add a clause to the licence that specifically allays the >Grafs fears. I believe these to be that either they will not be allowed to >distribute SMSQ/E with Q40/60, or that improvements upon it which they have >sponsored will be excluded from the official distribution, or that they >won't be able to sell it, except as bundled with a load of extra >"commercial" stuff at premium prices (with the commercial developers taking >a large cut). Any addition of commercial add-ons to the 'registered distributions' was been ruled out a long time ago. a. It would lead to too many versions to support b. It would lead to a spiralling cost of the product which would be unacceptable to the users and hard for the trader to maintain and distribute. We have therefore settled with the idea that all changes to the released version are free. >(They clearly would not want to direct any money Roy's way >from what we have read). I would make no money for any Q40/Q60 version of SMSQ/E since it is sold on ROM with the machine and changes would be free upgrades. (I must put this phrase into a cut'n'paste scrap pad somewhere. I have lost track of the number of times I have typed it.) > It may be that I have their concerns completely >misunderstood, but with all the invective, at times it has been hard to >separate the insults from the concerns. > Somewhat of a shame that. >Dave is simply concerned that as a legal agreement, it is easy to walk a >coach and horses through it, or hijack SMSQ/E. If we work on trust, then >perhaps that is not to great a problem. > >There is general consensus that a blanket restriction on electronic >transmission (of binaries) is putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of >the developers. > >May I suggest the following additions/modifications to the licence. > >a) The Registrar undertakes to accept and distribute any submissions >received that are essential for the continued support or development of any >hardware platform. Bit of a wide ranging clause this. Who will say what is essential ? >b) Any developer who informs the Registrar of the intent to develop >particular facilities/enhancements will be provided with a list of any known >conflicting or duplicate development activities. Seems reasonable. >c) Any developer will be given a written explanation for any submission that >is rejected. This will add a lot of work for the registrar >( Do we need an appeals process?) Only if you fear bias. I would say that Wolfgang's decision should be final. >d) Any commercial development requiring payment shall be kept as separate >modules to the core operating system. No development will be accepted which >prevents the core operating system to be used without the purchase of the >commercial module. Users who so desire, can purchase the core operating >system alone. I think that was agreed ages ago >e) Binaries of the core operating system can be freely distributed provided >that they are accompanied by a prominent warning that a fee for registration >must be paid before any support (or full manuals???) can be received.
> >Wolfgang, I suspect that you will blanche at the last one, but I feel that >it will work. If there are new potential users out there, this could allow >the likes of Richard to find them (assuming that he can work under this >revised regime). Maybe we could have a shareware version which will not save or one which times out but then again who would do the work needed to do this ? >If there aren't any, then no harm has been done. I suggest, >however, that only very limited documentation is made available without the >support . I for one am a potential new user for SMSQ/E, but only if/when it >is running under uQLx. This only adds to my argument above. Making SMSQ/E fit Richard's suggestions will not add to the general QL user base just to the SMSQ/E one. Not an inconsiderable thing to do in general but the implication that we will have more QL Users. > -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
