On 14 Oct 2003 at 12:06, Fabrizio Diversi wrote: > Again, > It should be clear that I am not an expert on this matter , i do not have any > special expertise .
Perhaps - but at least you TRY (and succeed) to do something with the sources. > Just one think , I have as my "hobby" to play with QL and its derivatives. Like just about anybody on this list. (...) > On the other side, if we want to prove the license is wrong, I hope soon someone > will > submit something relevant (for q60) to him to see what happen. It has already happened - your code profited ONLY the Q60. Jerome also submitted code with a heavy Q60 bias (event though he also tried to make it compatbile with all other machines). And why not? As already pointed out earlier, I would have to have a pretty strong incentive NOT to allow something in. That would, mainly, be if something breaks compatibility between machines (in the sense that other machines would be voluntarily excluded) > Conclusion : hoping no one will be upset, the only thing I would like to see is > "enhancement" > whatever they come. Don't we all!!!!!! However, I still think that the ost important thing would be to get some application software, a point in which, apparently, Peter Graf and I share the same view. Wolfgang
