Jochen Merz wrote:
>It is impossible to please anybody anyway, and I think you >have worked out a good compromise. As far as Q60 is concerned, all compromise proposals were turned down. Not only mine. Also those from well-known impartial persons. >Of course, if there's somebody who ONLY wants it to be done >his way, then, I believe, there's nothing more you can do. Unfortunately this applied pretty exact to your commercial NDA, as far as availability of executables is concerned. See the comments made by others, not me. >Peter really seems to be wanting to go "his" way, Well I propose Open Source like the majority of developers and users. This is how development works, when there is no significant commercial interest. There is nothing special about me. Open your eyes and look around the world!!! "Your" way with this strange NDA is surely much more special than Open Source. Unlike QPC SMSQ/E, Qx0 SMSQ/E has only non-commercial developers for the essential things. We need them! QPC itself can remain purely commercial. So why no open source OS? >but I feel that this may lead to disadvantages for current and >future Q40 and Q60 owners. I have been told that you don't wish to be involved with Q40 and Q60 SMSQ/E. Very likely the Q40 and Q60 users, developers and producers won't follow your feelings at this point. I'm sure they would like to see their OS version developed. >"Buying out" Q40/Q60 would most likely lead to development >splits, and the least signifant route will lose out. I would very much prefer not to "buy out". You are very much invited to join Open Source! Yes, you can even make a little money with it, and have more development. Why not consider a modern and liberal approach? Also keep in mind that I don't wish to "buy" anything for myself. The GPL gives freedom for all developers and users. And of course I don't insist on GPL, if something else is more acceptable for the majority of developrs. >If the already small group of QLers splits up, then this will >most likely increase the speed of the QL community dying. So don't insist on a strange NDA that is likely to split our community. Allow a license so all can join! >The few "commercial" authors left will be faced with even more >different versions of the operating system for even less >customers. Likely if your NDA persists. Unlikely with an Open Source SMSQ/E. >So I think what you're actually deciding here about is an absolutely >non-commercial QL scene run by Peter and Richard and maybe a >few others and shut down the QL shows and the rest as we know >it for years or carry on working together. Why not get yourself more information what open source, e.g. GPL means. Surely not what you are painting there. BTW non-commercial developers are the vast majority in the QL scene, not only a few. And: Under the GPL "free" doesn't necessarily mean "free of charge"! You are allowed to charge money, but you are not forced to do so. Maybe you can, in the long term, earn more money in a lively developed scene with the OS under the GPL than with your own NDA! You can concentrate on selling QPC, and your well-known support and handbooks. The OS license itself could be more liberal without affecting this. >Travelling to >QL shows costs us "commercial" dealers a lot of money, we >don't earn anything by doing this. So why all the fuss to keep SMSQ/E strictly commercial? >Again, "together" is the key word, isn't it? Yes, so don't lock out good open source developers with your NDA. >This not necessarily means everybody has to like each other, >but they should at least pull into the same direction - for >everybody's benefit. YES! >I really would not want to see the Q60 going the way which, for >example, CST's Thor went. So please give up your resistance against compromise. Peter
