On 5 Nov 2002, at 17:23, Dave P wrote: > Wolfgang, this email of yours is wrong on so many levels. > > Aside from any legal flaws in your argument, and there are a couple of > great big ones, you have a responsibility to handle these issues in a > discreet and diplomatic manner. This message is indiscreet, > undiplomatic, and certainly libellous.
Indiscreet, undiplomatic - yes. Just DON'T assume that I haven't tried to settle this previously in a discreet and diplomatic way. > As for the legal arguments, releasing software under a new license > does not automatically make that license applicable to all previous or > parallel versions. That depends on the previous licence, doesn't it? > The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to > sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or > agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. MAY ? Do they? > Any such > activity is absolutely legal, and your accusation that it is not is > not only wrong (due to lack of evidence, not finding of fact) but > places you in a very VERY unenviable position. I'm getting used to being in that position. > Up until this moment, I have felt you've been working in the best > interest of the SMSQ/E community, but having read this very > ill-advised post, I can only conclude that you do not posses the > diplomacy skills required of a registrar. OK, that's your point of view. > Accusing others of impropriety without very solid evidence, in such a > public forum, is an impropriety in itself. On the other hand, it may be the only way of getting a response that MAYBE shows me that I have been wrong. > You may be right, but that is hardly the point. Oh, but it is. The problem is that, right now, I'm NOT concerned with 'The Grafs' as you put it. I have no idea how "the Grafs" are involved in this. All I see is that d&d are selling the Q60, without a licence. Wolfgang
