Wolfgang wrote:
>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. If we had simply used a well-established open source license instead of creating and discussing a new commercial NDA, we could long be working with the source code. >I have expressed above my reluctance of the GPL licence. Obvously not knowing he GPL. >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. No. >Why should Marcel Kilgus agree to that (and, no, I >have NOT discussed this with Marcel). Because QPC is not affected as to my best knowledge. QPC and the SMSQ/E binary for QPC are different files. >The result: no more QPC? What a nonsense. Why should QPC be GPLed because of SMSQ/E? Have you ever read the GPL? >Is it worth it? Do you really see what you are accusing me? Fact is that I would not have proposed the GPL if it would affect QPC itself. GPL also does not mean Jochen Merz can make no money. Under the GPL "free" does not necessarily mean "free of charge". >On the other hand, under the current scheme, the Q40 SMSQ/E >can benefit from the advantages brought into all of SMSQ/E. No, under the current scheme, the Q60 target will practically be frozen, because no commercial developer is left for 68060 development. TT was the only one. A dead target can not benefit from "advantages". If you really know better about Q60 development "advantages" than me, give guarantees the work I pointed out will be done under your NDA. If not leave it to the open source developers to decide under which license they can work. The current scheme is the best way to further split the QL world. Open source might re-unite SMSQ/E with other parts of the QL world, and developers who have previously not worked for it. >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. Oh, do you accept Open Source now? Yes? Fine! Welcome to lead the Open Source SMSQ/E development :-)) >Just who are "those" Peter? I have already asked you who exactly turned my proposal down. You keep it a secret. I don't know your secrets. >However strange it may seem to you, the licence has been worked out with >TT's agreement. However strange it may seem to you, TT himself would allow Open Source. >Since you raise the queston of money, Just to put things straight: Those insisting on a commercial NDA have raised the question of money, not me. I would happily accept a non-commercial license. But if my money is needed so the Q60 developers and users have freedom to work and enjoy, well, I will give my share. > 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, I'm not in a generous mood, I'm with the back against the wall. >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 Would be a question for Tony, not me. However I appreciate his work. >You don't, because you don't pay too much for "a few boards" If I pay EUR 1 or EUR 2 or EUR 10 or EUR 45 per board or whatever is IRRELEVANT if the open source DEVELOPERS needed for Q60 won't work. When will you finally see that my intention is Q60 SMSQ/E *** DEVELOPMENT ***? >The user doesn't because he doesn't pay for the Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E. Of course the user will lose out without good Q60 SMSQ/E development. Do you think the Q60 users prefer a frozen OS to save a few EUR? >If there is a lobby that can not accept open source for their own >targets, please release at least the Q40/Q60 version, which I have >financed and now offer to pay even more, into freedom! >------------------------------- >Sorry, but whoa again. >With the provision that I haven't talked to TT about this at the time >of writing, I would like to say: >what lobby? >Am I a lobby? The answer is your secret. I don't know who needs to reject all the compromise proposals from Dylwin, Joachim, Richard, me and others. >To be quite frank, the opposition between the defenders of "code >freedom" and the sinister "lobby" preventing the good code to >escape into that freedom is so exaggerated that I can't help but >laugh about it. Better read just what I say and don't build fairytales beyond that. If you want Q60 SMSQ/E development, allow open source or at least a compromise. Peter
