On 11 Jun 2002, at 16:34, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
(snip - mostly of the GPL licence - you have your understanding, I have mine) >> > > 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 don't know, you tell me. I never talked about a lobby, Peter Graf did. > 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. I see. So what you means is that the fact that I am able to anticipate that there might be "commercial" developments in the QL world, means that there is a "lobby" pressuring me (and/or TT). Fine. I'll just let that stand for itself. > It would be sure cheaper for Peter, but perhaps he wants a few > guarantees that your licence doesn't give him. Back to that question again. I fail to see what guarantees he hasn't got. He STILL hasn't said he wants to become a reseller, so, of course, he STILL can't be sure that somebody will sell Q60 SMSQ/E. > 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. No change there, is there? What you seem to be proposing is that, since in your proposal he would have the source code, Marcel could then debug other's code... Thanks, but no thanks? > According to your interpretation he is not even allowed to > disassemble this code or debug the problem. Hardly an improvement > for him. Marcel, or you, or anybody, we're all in the same boat. This is why testing will become important, of course. This is why versioning will also become important, of course. I think we will be able to manage. > Regarding my position on this license, I would only do paid work > under this conditions. What an interesting development. > 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. Great that we don't all think like that. I agree with you, that financial revenues are pretty bad in our small community - so fortunately, not all want the horrendous (in our context) amounts of money you want. Wolfgang
