Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Dave Walker wrote: " >Wolfgang and others >One point that occurs to me is that the current restriction on >electronic distribution of the original source applies to Wolfgang >acting as the registrar? yes. ythink - the sources are several megabytes long. I routinely get about a 2KB/sec connection to my ISP. I don't see myself posting the source code via email every tile a change is made... > This means that every time Wolfgang accepts an update into the > official release then all those who are active and already have the >sources will want a new copy of the official source. Does this >mean that they need to apply to Wolfgang again? Good point. I have already foreseen that, if somebody is an "active developper" he will get updates from me automagically. There will probably be a certain number of people who will ask for the sources that will then go down a black hole - I'm not sure that these really need > I would assume not as this would very quickly become >unwieldy but the current license does not seem to offer an > >alternative. To be practical in terms of likely effort this means that >Wolfgang needs to letall those who already have copies of the >source an easy way of getting a later version with the minimum of >effort from all parties. Once you decide this, why not make the >initial distribution as painless. Ok, I hear you. > As stated earlier if control is wanted over this then a secure web >or FTP site would be a good solution. Alternatively Wolfgang >could maintain an email distribution list of those to whom updates >should be sent - but this only works well if the amount to be sent >remains small. If it grows in size or is changing with any >frequency then a download-on-demand approach is better. My >experience with the days when I used to supply c68 on disks >makes me feel strongly about this. It got to the stage where I >was spendingall my time copying disks. I only got things under >control when I switched to primarily web based distribution. Thanks for your input. It does give me solething to think about. SInce many people have requested to allow a distribution of the sources via email, I'll probably allow this in. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 09:34:57AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I for one am a potential new user for SMSQ/E, but only if/when it is running under uQLx. Wee, yousee, what prevents you, from my pont of view, to get SMSQ/E under UQLX, apparently, is not the licence, but the fact that one man, Richard, Zidlicky, is unwilling to work under it. He may do it for private fun but UQLX licence in its current form does not allow to distribute UQLX with modifications that are tailormade to run commercial software. It can be done without purely SMSQ specific modifications to UQLX, but unless someone provides colour screen drivers for Minerva or QDOS this part of functionality will be restricted. Nothing to nuke SMSQ specifically, the limitation is there already for years and it would need the approval of many UQLX contributors to remove it. Btw I intend to clarify the UQLX copyright as far as possible in the direction of Open Source, there are still some not so nice leftovers from past times when I wasn't fully convinced by OS. Richard
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 11:51:22PM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: This is obviously a split we can ill afford, and I feel that although it should not be necessary, it is in our interest to add a clause to the licence that specifically allays the Grafs fears. I believe these to be that either they will not be allowed to distribute SMSQ/E with Q40/60, or that improvements upon it which they have sponsored will be excluded from the official distribution, or that they won't be able to sell it, except as bundled with a load of extra commercial stuff at premium prices (with the commercial developers taking a large cut). Any addition of commercial add-ons to the 'registered distributions' was been ruled out a long time ago. a. It would lead to too many versions to support b. It would lead to a spiralling cost of the product which would be unacceptable to the users and hard for the trader to maintain and distribute. We have therefore settled with the idea that all changes to the released version are free. I read Wolfgang's post (Message-ID: 3CF1FDC1.27815.3E1B43@localhost) and it reads completely different: d) Any commercial development requiring payment shall be kept as separate modules to the core operating system. No, absolutely not. There MAY be commercial developments that are integrated into SMSQ/E. I don't know that there WILL be. If it can be done that way - OK. If not, then that's just too bad and the development will be incorporated into the core. No development will be accepted which prevents the core operating system to be used without the purchase of the commercial module. No. See above. If you have ruled it out long ago than write it into the licence, otherwise don't spread confusion. Richard
RE: [ql-users] QL downloads page
Works fine for me. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Dilwyn Jones Verzonden: zondag 26 mei 2002 18:29 Aan: QL Users List (new) Onderwerp: [ql-users] QL downloads page I have been trying to access Giorgio Garabello's software downloads page at www.sinclair-ql.it for several days and failed. Does anyone know if the site exists now or not? -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message 004c01c205cc$b4284340$47200150@taff2, Jeremy Taffel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Consider scenario 1. You accept my proposed changes. Richard develops UQLX for SMSQ/E, touts it with Redhat/SuSe/Mandrake/Slackware/Debian (at least one is already interested) , and as soon as one has it, the others want it as well because that is the way they are). user buys/downloads set of CDs Does a full installation, and starts to play. Soon, in a fit of nostalgia, he finds himself playing with the emulators. And what is this?? a QL brought into the modern world?! Wow, I wonder if I have any listings of my old SuperBasic programmes??, then I can't work out how the demo's do XYZ, pity the documentation isn't up to it, better send of my xx Euro (10 to TT, something TBD to a reseller to pay for his support) to get some support. But all of this could have happened before with UQLX as it stands. In fact the old QDOS ROMs were more tolerant of bad programming techniques than SMSQ/E so a lot of code would not run under it. Multiply that by n% of the Linux world and even though n is small, it represents a worthwhile increase in our community. These users then start to buy or even develop applications software, the QL compatible scene is rejuvenated. I cannot see any increase in the user base as a result of the current batch of free emulators and I can see no reason that will change by magic if SMSQ/E is written for UQLX. But of course, neither will happen. You won't change the licence, and Richard won't develop UQLX under it. I will continue to use UQLX with Minerva for legacy work , and use other operating systems for everything new.Eventually another long time user lost. I for one am a potential new user for SMSQ/E, but only if/when it is running under uQLx So you have used UQLX for a long time but will give up if you cannot have SMSQ/E ? Is this really what you are saying here ? . Wee, yousee, what prevents you, from my pont of view, to get SMSQ/E under UQLX, apparently, is not the licence, but the fact that one man, Richard, Zidlicky, is unwilling to work under it. I think that my illustration above explains why it is unreasonable for him to work under this licence.If he doesn't develop it, I won't blame him at all. His view, while unfortunate for me, is logical, and in his position I would do the same. I think the illustration above has more holes than a lorry load of colanders. These are only suggestions if you don't like them, then fine. The question isn't really whether I like them or not. The question is whether they will be able to create an envrionment where everybody, including the resellers and authors, will be able to work. As you mentioned earlier, there is a rift - I see that rift between those who, like me, want to ensure continued support fro SMSQ/E, and see that as coming in a great part from the resellers and comemrcial work, and others (like Richard) who want a true open source (incuding binaries). Like you, I have come to the conclusions that these positions are ot reconcilable. I try to do what I think is right. And I think that most people should be applauding you for that. BIG SNIP P.S. Having just read Roy's response, it seems that you and he have a different view as to whether commercial offerings will be accepted into the core operating system. No wonder I'm confused. If he has no problems with some of my suggestions and even thinks that some of the ideas have been agreed already, why are you so negative? OK I may have overstepped myself a bit here. Jochen and I discussed the concepts of adding commercial bits to SMSQ/E and, although I was at first very much in its favour, he pointed out to me that it would be unworkable in practice. The costs would spiral out of control (for the user - not for the reseller) and the administration would be a nightmare. We did decide that all commercial developments would have to be in the form of add-ons and that any development that had to go into the core of SMSQ/E would have to be free and go into the open version. I did think that this has been put to Wolfgang but it obviously had not. I apologise if I have mislead you. As I said I have no actual control over how the licence is. -- 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
