----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:52 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
In message <005201c2864a$e385e4e0$0d5c933e@tony>, TonyTebby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes <BIG SNIP> > >"Confidential in as much as you will not pass information on to any other >interested party, this way I can speak freely and as I want. Don't tell >Wolfgang, Marcel, Jochen etc. etc. On my part I must tell Derek all >(partner) and allow Peter Graf (associate) at least to have some >information (maybe all) of what is happening." > >Who do you think has been refusing to communicate? > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > >The Q60 - licence fee (royalties) > >Dennis Smith states that "We have been producing the Q60 for over a >year" and "Licence money has been paid" - who was this licence money >paid to? I certainly did not get it. > >------------------------------------------------------------------- > >More in sorrow& > >I accept the blame for writing QDOS and the consequences, but what have > Wolgang Lenerz, Jochen Merz and others done to merit the treatment >they are getting - they deserve to keep their fingers. > >Tony Tebby I think that this says it all really and anyone who has any cause to doubt the honesty of those who have striven to keep SMSQ/E on course should take note. I personally feel I owe a debt of gratitude to TT for all of his work over these years. His enthusiasm on the occasions when we met certainly played a large part in keeping my interest in the QL going. Tony's statements have backed up many of the things that we have been saying over the last few months and should really blow the cobwebs away from those who doubted. Still, given the way some people seem to react, I suppose there will be those who do not believe him either. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk Yes I wanted a private corrispondnce with him without outside influence. My question: Do you personally see any way to build in more flexibility to the licence to accomodate the programmers that do not like vatious parts of it. Asking this question in public might have restricted his answer. All fair enough I thought. We don't need the answer now. 2 or 3 emails and I would have had a result to work with. I sent it at the beginning of September and no response. In his original email to me he says it takes him weeks to summon up courage to even think about SMSQ/E (approx quote) so I thought he was taking a lot of time to reply, ok I'll wait. It gets worse. I had caught him originally by chance when he used the supnet address but I replied to him using the same address, result is if he sends to me it will be deleted unless I use one of the other computers that do not filter like that. If I loose some emails it does not matter because I only use supanet for 'the list'. Oops! I should have given him one of the private addresses. I found this out Thursday. Dennis - D&D Systems
