On 11 Jun 2002, at 21:46, Robert Newson wrote:
> 1 - What EXACTLY has TT offered wrt the source? > (... different possibilities ...) Alright. So let's talk about the past and the future. The past: ======= I think I already answered that question in detail, but here goes (again). Hopefully, this will put an end to accusations of lobbying and sinister designs. The whole mess is of my own doing. I accept that. What happened is that, like many of you, I noticed that there was not much development in SMSQ/E anymore. Many here have expressed their dissatisfaction with the current state of the OS (dare I mention slave blocks…). Ok, since it seemed obvious that TT couldn’t do any more work, I called him. (I want to make a small aside here: TT COIULDN’T – not wouldn’t- do any more work. He is a commercial developer, and wasn’t getting paid.) I called TT with the idea of somehow making the source code available to others. I probably did mention some form of “open source”. He agreed to this is principle. In our discussion, it became apparent that we both cared very much about source code unity, and wanted to avoid too much divergence, splits etc… So the first tentative mention of a registrar was made there. TT also made it clear that he did not want to despoil the few remaining commercial resellers who had generated some income for him by taking the effort to sell SMSQ/E. That was the state of things when I made this incredibly stupid mistake: I made the announcement here that the source code could be made open and that TT had agreed to this in principle. OK, so I should never have mentioned “open source”, as for some, this seems to have a very narrow definition, meaning you get the source and can do with it what you like. Mind you, I still think that, since the source code will be made available to anybody, and can be tinkered with by anybody, it still is open! But – I accept the responsibility of not having been precise enough for some (even though, I’m not sure whether a more careful choice of words would have made any difference in the long run – Richard and I, for example, have fundamental disagreements about the licence, not just a choice of words – I think that is SOMETHING we can agree on). Well anyway, I was of course immediately asked what the ‘in principle’ was, and IIRC, replied that the exact details were to be determined still. I also announced here that this would be done in Eindhoven. I HAD ABSOLUTELY NOT planned to go to Eindhoven at that time, I only went because TT insisted that I should be there… At Eindhoven, after the show, the following attended the round table: Tony Firshman Marcel Kilgus (who also had come only for this purpose) Jochen Merz Arnould Nazarian Roy Wood and myself. We all attended this round table, because we were there. During this discussion, we worked out the licence as it first came out. We also shaped the role of registrar (my choice of words) and, since I had come up with the scheme, I was stuck with it. I did not anticipate that we would be having the problems with that and the licence as we have now. I submitted the “official statement” to TT. He agreed to it, of course, and then I posted it here. The rest, as they say, is history. Ever the optimist, I had hoped (really!) that this scheme would be welcomed with open arms, since I believed, and still do, that it allows us to make our OS better still. Please note that at any stage I could simply have said - "OK, here is the licence, take it or leave it". I didn't because I thought, and still think, that your input is valuable (you = all of you). Also, I tried (vainly) to allay Peter Graf's fears that he somehow would be slighted by this licence. Anyway, your input was valuable, since I have made some not insignificant changes to the licence as a result of your comments. (What I regret is that the "simple users" have not chipped in). Of course, listening to some of you doesn't means that I have to agree with them, does it? Thus, accusing me of a lack of democracy, as some have done, is simply contrary to the facts. Robert, does that answer your question? And now for the future: ================= As Jeremy has pointed out quite some time ago now, it is time to take a stand. Sice there is an apparently unreconcilable rift between those who want a totally open source and those who agree to the licence as set out earlier, which fulfills the criteria set out - by TT - in Eindhoven the licence remains as it stands on this point. Binary distribution WILL remain limited to the resellers. Peter Graf's proposal to "buy out" the Q60/Q40 version of SMSQ/E is not accepted, with the explicit agreement of TT. This is to avoid a source code divergence in what would actually be two official versions. > 2 - Once TT's offer has been explained, for what exactly is the licence? > > To provide TT some royalties (as a thanks)? To stop some one using TT's > (and other's) code for self gain? To protect those who gain income (however > minor) from distributing the OS? All of the above AND to make sure that some control is retained over divergence. Apart from this over-discussed point on binary distribution etc, I have not had any comment about the licence as such. Hence, I will start to send out the source code as of next week. If you want it, please send me an email. Depending on the bumber of replies I get, I will ask for those IRCs, though! Wolfgang
