On 6 Nov 2002, at 3:46, Dave P wrote:
> And the question is "Is Wolfgang able to treat D&D fairly in light of > his sense that they are seemingly ignoring his perceived authority?" This something I cannot let by. There are always two sides to a authority - a moral and and a legal one. One has a "moral" authority when the situation is such that people want to abide by whatever decision is taken by you. I have no illusions in this respect - some people have gone clearly on record (e.g. Richard Zidlicky) to tell that they do not feel that I have such an authority. I can perfectly live with that. It also means that, in the eyes of these people I certainly don't have a "perceived" (nice turn of phrase, that) authority. The other is a legal authority, where a situation exists that you cannot do something (legally) without someone's authorization. Taking things out of a shop, for example - you may only do that if the shop owner agrees. It so happens that I am vested with that kind of authority, since TT delegated to me the power to receive requestes from resellers and see to it that official versions of SMSQ/E come from me. Now, as to the question of whether I am able to treat them fairly after they have seemingly ignored my "percevied" authority. The problem here is that they ignored the licence holder's legal rights. And they ignored my attempts to find you whether they are really ignoring this. Am I still able to treat them fairly? I hope so. I also must go on record to say that I think that I treated them fairly until now. What I can undertake (instead of expressing hopes) is that, if they ask to become a reseller, this will be examined in just the way as I described in many an earlier email. If they become a reseller, they WILL get official versions of SMSQ/E from me. Is that fair enough? > Which is what was expected to happen. The license, while I accept it > entirely, isn't one that can effectively discourage this. No licence can discourage people not to violate it. Look at M$ - they have about the most strict licences in the world, and still their software is pirated in the millions. What happened here, is that people were actually given a say in the matter, i.e. the drafting of the licence - and then, not satisfied at not having got what they wanted, they decided to boycott everything. This, at least is the way I perceive things. > The problem is that Wolfgang expects the D&D sales to result in a > payment to him of 10 Euros per copy sold, No, not to me, but to TT - I just pass the money over. > but he doesn't know how many > licenses they already have unsold, so there is no simple resolution > without facts. "unsold" :-))) as to the rest: yes, this is entirely true - BUT the presumption is that D&D have sold Q60s with SMSQ/E - after all, this is the way the machine has always been sold. If only they had simply told me - "we have not sold one single machine with SMSQ/E". > I do think it is vital to have someone keep the different versions of > SMSQ/E in step, and I think Wolfgang is technically capable. Thanks fo the "technically" > My worry > is that this action has polarised and marginalised D&D into a position > where they will feel unwilling to co-operate with him. Excuse me, but what cooperation? D&D and I don't HAVE TO cooperate (even though, still, I'd like to - let me go on record for this!). If D&D sell SMSQ/E as an official reseller, they will get the official versions from me. That's all the cooperation we HAVE to have and that's a cooperation I can guarantee from my side. Of course, I would prefer them telling me what more they expect of SMSQ/E, where they would like to make changes etc... If that doesn't happen, it's NOT because I'm not listening. > Now, words will fly, and indignation will be expressed since we're > talking about a world market for maybe 100 copies of SMSQ/E over the > coming years, it's not going to be sued over, and the enforcer has no > teeth. That also depends on the buyers of SMSQ/E. I for one, would not have bought a Q60 under these circumstances. If you do, knowing that you are using a pirated copy of an OS and that the people gining it to you had not right to do so, then that's your decision. > So it's academic. THAT we'll see. > What's the way forward from here? Good question. Other than suing them, I don't have a ready-made answer. Wolfgang