On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 11:51:22PM +0100, Roy Wood wrote:
> >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. I read Wolfgang's post (Message-ID: <3CF1FDC1.27815.3E1B43@localhost>) and it reads completely different: << > d) Any commercial development requiring payment shall be kept > as separate > modules to the core operating system. No, absolutely not. There MAY be commercial developments that are integrated into SMSQ/E. I don't know that there WILL be. If it can be done that way - OK. If not, then that's just too bad and the development will be incorporated into the "core". > No development will be accepted which > prevents the core operating system to be used without the >purchase of the > commercial module. No. See above. >> If you have ruled it out long ago than write it into the licence, otherwise don't spread confusion. Richard
