On 07/11/02 at 17:07 Dave P wrote: >The issue I take with it is this notion that all versions of SMSQ/E must >be identical. I think this is not in SMSQ/E's best interest because it >discourages development. > >For example, I think it is good for a version to add a feature that may >not be supported by other platforms, *as long as it is an addition*, and >the software style guide states that if the feature is used in software >released for all platforms, the equivalent functionality should be >included (if possible) for other platforms too. > >For example, say a machine is released that requires different code to >operate an IDE interface. That version should be allowed to exclude code >which is simply not relevant, like microdrive-related code, if microdrives >could never be attached to the machine. (this may be a bad example)
Then what you really want to say in the licence would be that additions to SMSQ/E to add a feature of capability to one platform will not be accepted if it may seriously hinder or even prevent adding an equivalent feature or capability on another. Obviously, this excludes all platforms where such feature simply makes on sense or is impossible (by design - leack of need), but does at least suggest some form of forethought, so that we don't get 'my way or the highway' style features. This breeds tremenodous problems with writing applications and further additions to SMSQ/E. Nasta
