>
> Richard wrote:
>
> ----------
> Why Wolfgang doesn't take GPL is beyond me. This license has
> not onlytheoretical problems and Wolfgang is assuming much
> more responsibility than he seems to want.
> --------------
>
> True - the responsibility is higher than I thought initially. However, if
> I had one inch of doubt on being able to handle the stuff, I would
> have resigned already.
>
> I will NEVER agree to GPL. Under GPL, as soon as you use the
> tiniest little bit of something "GPL'd", you HAVE to make your
> code GPL, too.
you have obviously not even looked at GPL but only read some anti-GPL
fud instead, otherwise you would know how ridiculous that claim is.
GPL has restrictions, those affect only code that is linked with the
"software" or parts of it. Copyright holder *defines* what "linking"
means exactly but common understanding (approximately translated into
SMSQ speak) is that this holds only for code that
+ is part of SMSQ (tautology I know..)
+ and/or useses "internal" structures or interfaces of "the software".
Again, copyright holder decides what this means exactly.
SMSQ modules for example would be under most circumstances free from
any restrictions from GPL - as long as they don't textually cut&paste
code from SMSQ.
I consider this much less restricting than your license.
If this is still too restrictive you can use LGPL and link and use
non-(L)GPL code without restriction
If you think that this is still too restrictive give special permissions
though generally you will want as little special permissions as necessary.
No, GPL is *not* the communist manifest..
> Peter Graf wrote:
>
> -------------------
> Exactly. It would be so simple.
>
> Moreover, we have offered TT a compensation of EUR 2000.00 if he
> releases SMSQ/E (at least the version which he wrote for me)
> under the GPL.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> In view of this new development, I will of course take counsel with
> TT. The obvious result is that the licence will be delayed, and so
> will the release of the source code. Sorry.
never mind. I appreciate that the licence already *did* improve in some
ways and if there is someone who will want to develop with it I am
sure he/she will appreciate this.
> Peter continues
> -------------------------------------
> The GPL is a wellknown open source license, and thus encourages
> non-commercial development, which is now needed for Q40/Q60,
> because TT seems to give up.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> I have expressed above my reluctance of the GPL licence. Let us
> take, for example, QPC. QPC, at least in some ways, builds on
> SMSQ/E. If SMSQ/E were GPL, QPC would have to be made open
> source, too. Why should Marcel Kilgus agree to that (and, no, I
> have NOT discussed this with Marcel).
sorry but this is utter nonsense. As explained above, GPL only affects
software which is linked with "this software" or parts thereof. QPC is
not linked in technical sense with SMSQ and technically can never be
because it is merely "a piece of hardware" on which SMSQ runs.
This is just as absurd as claiming that every PC or PC emulator now has
to be open source just because Linux which is GPL runs on it.
Just to repeat it here:
- all QDOS/SMSQ applications are not at all touched when SMSQ is
GPL.
- all emulators can continue to work unaffected.
- absolutely no restriction for commercial or other drivers as long as
they are loadable with 'lrespr' or similar
- use LGPL or special permissions if you need more flexibility
Personally I would not mind if some QPC related files of SMSQ would be
completely outside the scope of this license which the copyright holder
can easilly allow.
> Peter continues:
>
> ---------------------------
> Those who insist on establishing their own commercial NDA based
> on TT's work, and on future free work of others, should consider
> that they also prevent this income for TT. In favour of forwarding to
> TT EUR 10 each for a few boards, and discouraging our best 68060
> developers.
> --------------------
>
> Whoa there.
>
> Would "those" who do these bad and evil things please step
> forward.
> Hmmm - nobody? How strange.
really funny that, but aren't you supposed to give the answer here?
I have asked you several times privately and at least one time in
public who those subjects are or what kind of project they have in
mind that must be so desperately included in core SMSQ and requires
royalty payments in the hope we could find some compromise based on
facts.
I have not seen an answer from you so I gain the impression that
you are just playing with the public.
> Just who are "those" Peter? However strange it may seem to you,
> the licence has been worked out with TT's agreement.
>
> I have made it clear in the licence that you can do your own
> development, and as long as it doesn't incorporate TT's code, you
> can, OF COURSE, do with it what you want -even have it
> distributed alongside with SMSQ/E (because you will refuse to
> have it within SMSQ/E).
>
> Since you raise the queston of money, I'd like to say the following,
> even though I try as much as possible to stay away from the
> financial aspect of this:
> The idea of paying 10 EUR to TT for each new copy sold was born
> in Eindhoven - TT never asked for money. We thought, and still
> think, that he should get some money for each copy sold.
>
> As to the question of paying 2000 EUR instead of forwarding 10
> EUR for each board - since you are in this generous mood, why not
> do the following: become a reseller but DON'T charge for the
> Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E - and pay TT 10 EUR for each copy thus "sold".
> That way, nobody loses out:
> TT doesn't because he gets fair money
> You don't, because you don't pay too much for "a few boards"
> The user doesn't because he doesn't pay for the Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E.
It would be sure cheaper for Peter, but perhaps he wants a few
guarantees that your licence doesn't give him.
With your licence SMSQ clearly looses because nobody has sufficient
guarantees on anything. Even Marcel Kilgus should realise that
this license can make his life "interesting". All the sudden there
may be parts of the OS from which he will not have the source but may
still be buggy or interact badly with his code and affect stability
of QPC. According to your interpretation he is not even allowed to
disassemble this code or debug the problem. Hardly an improvement
for him.
Regarding my position on this license, I would only do paid work
under this conditions. I mean *paid*, not some ridiculous 20 Euro
anually from royalties. SMSQ sales will be so weak for foreseeable
future that you have absolutely no way to "reward" someone just by
giving him royalties, all that you achieve with this part of the
license is tainting the copyright *forever*. Scratch that nonsense,
there are easier ways to make money with SMSQ.
Richard
