<< cut >>
> The problem here is that it does fragment the community - I see nothing in
> the current licence which prevents giving the binaries away for nothing,
> provided that the 10 Euro fee is still paid to TT for each new copy sold (or
> given away), so long as you register as an authorised reseller.
the problem is the license says otherwise, read it. It is 10 Euro now, it
may be 50 Euro next year, nobody knows. Or perhaps someone does know but
doesn't say.
With this license Peter isn't sure he could provide even minor fixes for
Q40/Q60 related issues free of cost to the user (actually afaics he is
convinced to the opposite). If Wolfgang accepts some royalty financed
extension to SMSQ in the meantime the user does have to buy a new license
and pay the extra royalties just to get the free fixes - the requirement
of a single official SMSQ version causes this.
I consider getting free bugfixes say at the basis of current functionality
pretty essential. The people *have* paid the license so all bugfixes must
be free unless they require complete rewrite of the code. And availablity
of bugfixes *must* be independent of the purchase of some new fancy
extension that will almost certainly introduce a whole load of new bugs.
Basically I am trying to make sure we have the right to decline the M$ way
of doing business. Not that I would accuse anybody of planning it but I know
from own experience how often new versions of software introduce new problems
which nobody desired.
Can you and Peter please highlight the clause in the licence which prevents copies of SMSQ.E binaries being given away or updates given at nil cost (I seem to have lost my copy of the licence ahhh!). So far as I read it, so long as the royalty to TT (or other commercial author) is paid, there seems no restriction on the price actually charged for an SMSQ/E binary.
I agree that if someone adds a commercial element to the main core, the user will have to pay to get the latest version, but it is unlikely to happen in reality and if it does, the user has the option not to upgrade. In any event, market forces dictate that it is unlikely that anyone will pay for a change to the core which no-one actually wants, so why would the Q40/Q60 users object to paying for the extra functionality??
Free upgrades appear to be covered under the licence - but this is where I am lost without my copy of the licence!!
> you should be wary of having a specific clause to say that all Qx0 binaries
> can be distributed freely because this may put off anyone who does want to do
> some commercial coding for the Qx0.
I would not mind if someone wants to sell "enhanced" binaries and
claim extra money. Shouldn't the user have the choice whether he
takes the free binary or something fancy?
<<cut>>
I agree that a user should have the choice whether to take updates to the free binary or not.. However, it is not practical to keep several versions of the code running concurrently and expect programmers to maintain all those versions. The last thing we want (and hence the reason for keeping one main core version of SMSQ/E) is for the resellers/programmers to be asked to fix a bug in a free version of SMSQ/E for the Q40 which they have already fixed in a commercial version which could need a lot more work to do, particularly if they have relied on something added by the commercial version (whether it is their own or not).... And according to your view of the licence, you would want them to do this bug fix for free!!
This could end up with the old adage of re-inventing the wheel, as a non-commercial programmer is asked to fix something in the free version which has already been fixed (months, maybe years ago) in the commercial version...
Frankly I consider all the arguments for a single official SMSQ
completely bogus.
There is also some philosophical and practical problems with royalties
in the SMSQ license.
If someone develops an ISO 9660 reader should users without CD reader
pay the royalties for this? What happens if the author doesn't maintain
his code for say 2 years or it becomes obsoleted by something else?
Should other developpers maintain the code while the author still receives
royalties? What happens if something is implemented in such a way that
it turns out a year later it prevents or heavilly obstructs some other
development? I have practice in operating systems development so I know
this happens very often unfortunately. Having royalty payments will
often lead to the situation where other developpers say let the guy
who gets the royalties fix his code.
<<cut>>
Yes, I agree - that is why I have suggested to Wolfgang that the licence include a clause stating that any additions to the core binaries (commercial or not) must be supplied with a copy of the source code to the registrar, stating whether the source is to be distributed as part of the source code distribution. Provided further that if the registrar is unable to contact the author for a period of say 6 months, the addition is deemed to be free public domain code and the sources/binary can be made available free of charge.
Rich Mellor
RWAP Software
7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR
TEL: 01977 614299
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
