Re: [ql-users] This is the (duscussion about the) LICENCE

[RWAPSoftware]

Hmmm just a thought - should the licence include a clause along the following lines:

- Any changes additions or modifications to SMSQ/E (whether commercial or not) must be sent to the registrar together with the source code together with instructions as to whether they are to be included as part of the Original Source or the Binaries subject to the overall proviso that if the author of such changes additions or modifications cannot be contacted by the registrar for a period of at least 6 months, such changes additions or modifications shall be deemed to be part of the official distribution and the sources shall became part of the Original Source.

This should overcome problems of where an author disappears and support for their code would otherwise be lost...

Comments??

Rich Mellor 
RWAP Software
7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR
TEL: 01977 614299
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Tony Firshman]

On  Fri, 14 Jun 2002 at 23:28:18, Roy Wood wrote:
(ref: )

>
>In message <001301c213a9$8e90a4c0$d299893e@macnamarxmjd3y>, Mike
>MacNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>>> OK. Compare the first proposal with the actual licence. Ask
>>> yourself: did "the other side" make many/any concessions? Yes,
>>> so I have saved face and can accept it.
>>I did not think your livelihood was derived from QLs, or your
>>capital tied up in it, what I meant was if my back was to the
>>wall I would be looking to save face here, it is a no win
>>situation.
>OK reality check here.

> Peter Graf got 3 times the amount of money per board than Tony or I
>received.
I have had no money for my work - hundreds of hours just on
construction.   Roy paid for most of the 100% new  parts I bought.
However I have to buy replacement eproms (for the faulty ones) and other
top up parts, and RAM sockets to replace the dodgy new CPC ones I
bought.  ... and I am £700 cash down on that.
> Tony for doing a whole lot of work and me for putting the
>documentation together, sorting and compiling support disks, testing
>the code from TT and advertising. In fact Tony and I still have several
>non working boards so we made a whopping loss. I sympathise with D&D.

-- 
 QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
  tony@.demon.co.uk  http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk
   Voice: +44(0)1442-828254   Fax: +44(0)1442-828255
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG

Re: [ql-users] This is the (duscussion about the) LICENCE

[Tony Firshman]

On  Thu, 13 Jun 2002 at 22:58:10, Roy Wood wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)

>
>In message <3D08697D.15521.A14E00@localhost>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
>
>I think the forgoing part of Wolfgang's message was well overdue and
>very well put. His patience and tact in dealing with the issues is to
>be applauded and I also think that this should put the lid on the
>discussion for the time being. It is time to stop arguing about the
>petty grievances and do something with the seed we have.
Indeed.
Even if differences are not petty, we should not get into personal
attacks.  It has gone far beyond mere argument.
In Shakespeare's time, argument was simply discussion.  We should have
had more of that.



-- 
 QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
  tony@.demon.co.uk  http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk
   Voice: +44(0)1442-828254   Fax: +44(0)1442-828255
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Mike MacNamara]

Hmmm
What do I say, its a very tangled web we weave, I remember you
mentioned something about a disagreement with PG way back when
you got our Q40, I didn't realise just how deep the problem ran.
Lets hope something can be salvaged from the situation, that can
benefit the QL with the minimum of damage all round.

Regards


Mike

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.macnamaras.com
- Original Message -
From: "Roy Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


>
> In message <019301c2133a$e851c8a0$9e6d893e@macnamarxmjd3y>,
Mike
> MacNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >Still friends?
> Of course still friends. I just felt that you were not in
possession of
> the facts.
> Regards
> Roy
> --
> 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
>
>
>

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Roy Wood]

In message <019301c2133a$e851c8a0$9e6d893e@macnamarxmjd3y>, Mike 
MacNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Still friends?
Of course still friends. I just felt that you were not in possession of 
the facts.
Regards
Roy
-- 
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

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Roy Wood]

In message <001301c213a9$8e90a4c0$d299893e@macnamarxmjd3y>, Mike 
MacNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>> OK. Compare the first proposal with the actual licence. Ask
>> yourself: did "the other side" make many/any concessions? Yes,
>> so I have saved face and can accept it.
>I did not think your livelihood was derived from QLs, or your
>capital tied up in it, what I meant was if my back was to the
>wall I would be looking to save face here, it is a no win
>situation.
OK reality check here. What do you actually know about the situation?
When I was selling the Q40 Peter Graf had no financial commitment apart 
from sourcing the parts. Tony Firshman and I paid for the parts. He did 
pay for the circuit boards and the 'licence chips and we paid him back 
for these. All of the financial burden was on our shoulders. Peter would 
not give Tony Firshman the circuit diagram at  the start because 'he 
will steal my ideas' . (Oh did hear someone say Open Source ?).

Peter would not change one thing in his design in spite of the fact that 
Tony and I pointed out several advantages to making changes and a few 
real problems. Peter made very little effort to solve any problems that 
existed in our manufacture. Tony found and bought most of the parts but, 
because it was me that turned around and said there would be no more 
money until he made some effort to help us solve the problems. The parts 
became 'Roy's faulty parts'. In fact some of the problems were with his 
faulty EPROM's and  2nd hand video ram. I refunded money and gave away 
free copies of QPC2 (which I paid for) to a few users who waited for 
ages for a Q40 which I could not supply because Tony could not get them 
to work. Peter Graf got 3 times the amount of money per board than Tony 
or I received. Tony for doing a whole lot of work and me for putting the 
documentation together, sorting and compiling support disks, testing the 
code from TT and advertising. In fact Tony and I still have several non 
working boards so we made a whopping loss. I sympathise with D&D.

Peter Graf has a job which, as far as I was led to understand when he 
was saying things like, 'my job is sending me to Hong Kong etc.' pays 
well. The only losers here will be the users because there is nothing to 
stop Peter doing business in the licence - it is just that he has to 
rely on people who will not do the work because he has alienated all the 
others. A rod for his own back I believe.
-- 
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

Re: [ql-users] QTYP

[Geoff Wicks]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ql-users] QTYP


>
> On 13 Jun 2002, at 19:45, Geoff Wicks wrote:
> (...)
> > and investigating
> > possible QTYP bugs with Dietrich Buder get further delayed.
>
> This is typically the kind of bug I like to get my teeth into, so why
> don't you let me know the problem?
>

I am surprised you have time for anything given the battering you have had
in the last couple of weeks.

The emails with Dietrich go back to the end of last year. He is writing a
German QTYP dictionary and reported that above a certain size the file
becomes corrupted. At first, possibly because of limitations in my German
and Dietrich's English, I could not fully understand what he was describing.
He then kindly wrote his emails in both German and English and I could
follow what he was saying.

Basically after a certain size, which is somewhere around 100,000 words, the
QTYP_DED program "corrupts" the dictionary in that it does not change in
size when new words are added, and when you attempt to reload it to add yet
more words you get an "Invalid Dictionary" error message. I put "corrupt"
between inverted commas because if you expand the dictionary the new words
are still there and the word list itself is not corrupt. You can make a
valid dictionary using the expanded word list. The corruption seems to be in
QTYP internally recognising that new words have been added.

I needed to do a lot of testing to explore the problem further, but did not
have the time. There were also a few other problems that Deitrich mentioned.

I can send you all Dietrich's email privately, but I am not sure how long it
will take to get these together.

>
> > QLib/EasyPTR allows you to make some professional looking programs.
> > It's just a pity that the latter is such a b*gg*r to learn. TurboPTR
> > is worth looking at as an alternative.
>
> Just a (probably pretty stupid) question: is there anything that
> stops you using TurboPTR with Qlib?

This is probably a stupid answer, but I don't know! Basically TurboPTR does
a similar job to Easy Menu in the EasyPTR suite. When you have designed your
menu you can write a pointer program that can be compiled using Turbo, which
was the point in writing TurboPTR.

I never got beyond experimenting with TurboPTR. I tried adapting the menu of
Spelling Crib using TurboPTR, but came across numerous problems, mainly
because of overlapping windows. George addressed many of the problems. I
then intended to write something simpler from scratch to test TurboPTR, but
could not decide what to do, and eventually other priorities came in the
way. I was a poor beta tester and George was very patient with me!

Geoff Wicks

Re: [ql-users] EasyPTR formerly Plight of a Software House

[Geoff Wicks]

- Original Message -
From: Norman Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [ql-users] Plight of a Software House


> You wrote :
>
> >> QLib/EasyPTR allows you to make some professional looking programs.
It's
> >> just a pity that the latter is such a b*gg*r to learn.
>
> Have you seen the (excellent) tutorial that was published in Quanta and I
> think is available on Dilwyn's web site, on using EasyPTR ?
> I thoroughly recommend it :o)
>

By some strange coincidence would that tutorial be written by a certain
Norman Dunbar?

By an even stranger coincidence would that be the same Norman Dunbar who
writes those obscure and lengthy articles in QL Today that no one
understands? ;-)

Seriously, I have forgotten whose aids I used when I first learnt EasyPTR,
but without them I would never have succeeded. There is a huge step that has
to be overcome in writing your first pointer program, and unexpected snakes
in the grass. My first effort ran perfectly under old QL ROMs, Minerva, and
SMSQ, but not SMSQ-E and I still don't know why. The pity is that this puts
people off, but once you have got over that first step, writing more
programs is much easier and you become addicted to the pointer environment.

I still get problems that puzzle me, however. My new program contains a lot
of sprites. If I call a sprite using SPRW and its name, it works the first
time I call it but not the second and subsequent times. The secret is to use
SPRA to find its address and then call it using SPRW and the address. There
are lots of little things like this in EasyPTR that can make it confusing,
particularly for the beginner.

Geoff Wicks

Re: [ql-users] Memory Card Types

[Peter Fox]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Derek Stewart) wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> I habe been looking at the type os Compact flash cards, a firm near 
> where I live sells three type :
> 
> Smartmedia
> 
> Compact Flask
> 
> Multi Media
> 
> Which is the best for the Compact flash readers. 
> 
> Derek 
> 
Whilst you are looking try looking at www.hamiltone.com which offers very 
good prices for Compact Flash cards, I know I have bought 2 * 128 MB.  
Whilst Roy Wood never mentions it, he works there and they are very 
competitive.

Regards,

Peter Fox

Re[4]: [ql-users] Come & get it

[Bruce N]

Hello Dave,

Friday, June 14, 2002, 7:59:01 PM, you wrote:

DP> Brucie-baby,

DP> What formats do you accept submissions in? If someone wanted to send some
DP> illustrations or photos, what format(s) do you support?

DP> Daaave


Dave

Most PC or QL formats are acceptable.

-- 
Best regards,
 Bruce
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re[3]: [ql-users] Come & get it

[Dave P]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Bruce N wrote:

> I knew I should have checked the reply header first!
> Now everyone has my address please use this address for any
> submissions to Quanta as the one published last month was incorrect.
> The next issue is very light on material and if you feel like writing
> a small article it would be most appreciated.

Brucie-baby,

What formats do you accept submissions in? If someone wanted to send some
illustrations or photos, what format(s) do you support?

Daaave

Re[3]: [ql-users] Come & get it

[Bruce N]

I knew I should have checked the reply header first!
Now everyone has my address please use this address for any
submissions to Quanta as the one published last month was incorrect.
The next issue is very light on material and if you feel like writing
a small article it would be most appreciated.

Bruce
Quanta Editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re[2]: [ql-users] Come & get it

[Bruce N]

Hello wlenerz,

Friday, June 14, 2002, 5:17:37 AM, you wrote:


wff> Ok, since this might have been lost in the lengthy reply to Robert, I 
wff> am now taking orders for the source code under the licence as it 
wff> was set out here.
wff> Please send me an email with your postal address.
wff> Depending on the number of returns, I will have to ask for those 
wff> IRCs or not.
wff> I won't be sending anything out before next monday, though.

wff> Wolfgang

Hi Wolfgang

Please put me on the list for the source code.

My address is
Bruce Nicholls
38 Derham Gardens
Upminster
Essex
RM14 3HA
UK

-- 
Best regards,
 Brucemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ql-users] QPC and ports

[Marcel Kilgus]

Burkinshaw, Ian wrote: 
> Would it possible to allow input via the parallel port?

I'm not completely sure, but I think the answer is no. In fact doing a
reliable output to the port is already quite challenging ;-) I think
this can only be done through a printer driver or something similar.

> Are there any plans to be able to use the PC's sound card, I know
> you can control the CD Drive. But I would like to be able to create
> and play WAV type files via QPC.

Yes, there are plans. In fact I was planning to already have it
implemented by now. And it wouldn't be hard to do if we had a decent
sound system standard. The SSS is crap. It's good enough for the Q40
"sound system" (which is no system at all but just two D/A converter
which get fed with new data in a 20kHz interrupt routine), but for
anything that uses DMA looped buffer (i.e. all "real" sound systems)
it's very hard to implement in a proper way. I gather the GoldFire
will have a decent sound chip, too, so in the end it will face the
same problem. I'm not really sure how to solve this issue, maybe it
would be the best to design a new sound standard. This could be done
in a way that it suites both DMA based systems and the Q40
interrupt/converters combo.

And please no comments about me "attacking the Qx0". What I wrote
above are simple facts.

Cheers, Marcel

Re: [ql-users] Re: QPC

[Geogwilt]

In a message dated 14/06/02 01:30:56 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


John Sadler wrote: 
> Does QPC emulate 68020+ and floating point instruction set?

No.

> If not why not extend it so it does,

Basically just too much work.

> so we can use some of the programs George Gwilt is writing,
> particularly his progrms for manipulating images and getting
> pictures of Kodak digital cameras.

He needs floating point for that?


Yes and no!

To change the size of a "partial save area" I use the 68020+ instruction set, which by the way is standard on QXL, Q40, Q60 and Super Gold Card. This operation does not use a FPU.

I also plan to allow the "distortion" of an image so that it appears to be on a cylinder or sphere. This I plan to do using a PFU. Some QXLs, all Q40s and Q60s have this facility - so why not use it?

George Gwilt

[ql-users] QPC and ports

[Burkinshaw, Ian]

Hi

Would it possible to allow input via the parallel port? I know this would
not be possible on say a GoldCard so would be only available on QPC. Having
said it's not possible on a Gold Card that is true, but you can have two way
parallel ports via the I2C interface on Minerva. , but there is no way of
doing the same on QPC. 

I am right in saying that you cannot peek and/or poke the parallel port on a
GoldCard or SuperGoldCard. 

Are there any plans to be able to use the PC's sound card, I know you can
control the CD Drive. But I would like to be able to create and play WAV
type files via QPC. 

As a general point if these feature were available then more applications
are possible. For example weather fax decoding also radio receiver control
with automatic recording. There are many others.

Any comments

Ian Burkinshaw


Please visit us at http://www.sonybiz.net


The information contained in this message or any of its 
attachments may be confidential and is intended for the 
exclusive use of the addressee(s). Any disclosure, 
reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of 
this communication is strictly prohibited without the 
express permission of the sender. The views expressed in 
this email are those of the individual and not necessarily 
those of Sony or Sony affiliated companies. Sony email is 
for business use only. This email and any response may 
be monitored by Sony United Kingdom Limited.

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Mike MacNamara]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


>
> On 14 Jun 2002, at 13:25, Mike MacNamara wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Wolfgang
> >
> > OK, ADSL now up and running, back to business. I know you
appear
> > to have moved along with some others, but the problem is
becoming
> > intractable.  A magnanimous gesture of some sort is required,
if this
> > is to be resolved.
not necessarily from you!
>
> Ok, so no more talk of GPL etc... then?
I have never mentioned it.
>
>
> > There can be no winners in this situation, if my
> > livelihood was in the balance I would be looking for a way to
save
> > face here!
> >
> OK. Compare the first proposal with the actual licence. Ask
> yourself: did "the other side" make many/any concessions? Yes,
> so I have saved face and can accept it.
I did not think your livelihood was derived from QLs, or your
capital tied up in it, what I meant was if my back was to the
wall I would be looking to save face here, it is a no win
situation.

regards
Mike
>
>
>
> Wolfgang
>

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[wlenerz]

On 14 Jun 2002, at 13:25, Mike MacNamara wrote:

> 
> Hi Wolfgang
> 
> OK, ADSL now up and running, back to business. I know you appear
> to have moved along with some others, but the problem is becoming
> intractable.  A magnanimous gesture of some sort is required, if this
> is to be resolved. 

Ok, so no more talk of GPL etc... then?


> There can be no winners in this situation, if my
> livelihood was in the balance I would be looking for a way to save
> face here!
> 
OK. Compare the first proposal with the actual licence. Ask 
yourself: did "the other side" make many/any concessions? Yes, 
so I have saved face and can accept it.



Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Mike MacNamara]

Hi Wolfgang

OK, ADSL now up and running, back to business. I know you appear
to have moved along with some others, but the problem is becoming
intractable.  A magnanimous gesture of some sort is required, if
this is to be resolved. There can be no winners in this
situation, if my livelihood was in the balance I would be looking
for a way to save face here!

Regards


Mike

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.macnamaras.com
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


>
> On 14 Jun 2002, at 1:08, Mike MacNamara wrote:
>
> > A locked room seems the only way forward.
> I'm not so sure about this at all...
> > I know you
> > feel you have all compromised and bent over backwards, and
probably
> > you have, but if you don't go that extra yard, it may end in
tears.
> > The same must be said to the Grafs and anybody else who feels
a
> > grievance.( a bit like the middle east really)., if somebody
does not
> > move then disaster.
>
> Well, seen from my side, it is pretty simple: We came up with
an
> idea in Eindhoven, as set out earlier. this was aired here.
Many
> comments and criticisms were made. I have made many changes
> to the licence as a consequence, thus compromising and changing
> my initial positing.
> WHAT CHANGE IN POSITION HAS THERE BEEN FROM "THE
> GRAF CAMP"?
> NONE.
>
> It always takes two to compromise.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[wlenerz]

On 14 Jun 2002, at 11:10, Mike MacNamara wrote:

> I hope I am not taking sides, it is sad there seems to be sides.

Yess!

> > I, personally, would dispute that statement. For me, QPC is
> just as
> > important.
> I have already said to Marcel and Jochen that in the wee sma
> hours I should have used 'equally' instead of 'most'. 

Yes of course you did - my message went out before I had read 
your reply. Sorry.

> I think
> without Marcels contribution the user base would be drastically
> smaller than it is now. I was trying in my simple way to keep the
> discussion on the level of the costs incurred by hardware developers,
> by virtue of component and development costs, being greater than those
> incurred by others. QPC is very important, and I as a user can see the
> day when QPC is going to be about all we have.


 (lobby)
> Somebody else's word, not mine...

Ok, OK...
 

> Fine, no problem there, it is not your interpretation or decision that
> are the point. I don't know enough about the mechanics to venture an
> opinion, but must be guided by reasonable people. What appears to be
> the problem is the perception by some that all is MAYBE not as open as
> would be desired. That needs to be addressed, I know you are trying to
> do this, you really need to be a UN diplomat to sort it out. 

Well, what more can I do be be even more open?


> Fine, but again fuels the perception.
I'm sorry, but there I disagree with you totally. We DO have a 
discussion here, and a good forum to thrash things out. After the 
Eindhoven meeting and when this discussion was in full debate, 
there was a QL meeting somewhere in the UK, sorry forgot where. 
MAny of the protagonists were there (not me) - and dialogue just 
wasn't possible.
If we had a meeting, I'm not sure things wouldn't come to blows!
(I'm serious here!)

> Again the perception is about in
> some quarters, whether justified or not. To paraphrase someone" it is
> not enough to do right, one has got to be seen to do right" .

I agree with you on both counts. However, when you are in a 
situation where you will not be seen as doing anything right unless 
you do exactly what one party wants - there is no issue.


> >
> No
> I did not say that, I said listen, I think most QLers, including
> myself, trust you  completely in this matter, and will go  along with
> whatever you decide.

What a change! :-)

> What I have said is ,please don't let past 'bad
> blood' between parties cause a split in the QL community, a bit of
> diplomacy to smooth the perceptions of some may be all that can be
> done.
Again, I agree -especially as I think I can truely state that I wans't 
part of this "bad blood".
 But your comment then means that I have not been diplomatic 
enough until now, doesn't it? The problem is that diplomacy doesn't 
mean never saying "no". At some stage, a decision must be made, 
and since there are two contradictory lines are in play, the decision 
has to be in "favour" of one of them.
I do believe that I have listened, I have tried to answer all 
arguments, I have agreed to some suggestions, not to others 
because this is not possible.

> You asked for users opinions, I think I shall get on with
> installing the ADSL equipment that has just arrived. At least I
> shall be able to retreat more quickly.
> 
> Good luck, sincerely,


Thanks.
Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Mike MacNamara]

On 14/6/92  07:08
 Wolfgang wrote

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


>
> On 13 Jun 2002, at 22:09, Mike MacNamara wrote:
>
> >
> > Any sensible person is not going to get involved or take
sides in
> > this, that is why Wolfgang is not hearing feedback from
users, I
> > think.
>
> Isn't there a difference between "getting involved" and "taking
> sides"? I'm not asking anybody to take sides here, just to
voice
> their opinions.
I hope I am not taking sides, it is sad there seems to be sides.
>
> > However nobody ever accused me of being sensible.
> :-)))
>
> >So, from a user
> > point of view, Peter Graf seems to be the one with most at
stake, his
> > is the biggest commitment, he is, apart from Nasta, the only
one
> > developing the 'QL' ( of whatever flavour) and therefore his
views are
> > most important.
>
> I, personally, would dispute that statement. For me, QPC is
just as
> important.
I have already said to Marcel and Jochen that in the wee sma
hours I should have used 'equally' instead of 'most'. I think
without Marcels contribution the user base would be drastically
smaller than it is now. I was trying in my simple way to keep the
discussion on the level of the costs incurred by hardware
developers, by virtue of component and development costs, being
greater than those incurred by others. QPC is very important, and
I as a user can see the day when QPC is going to be about all we
have.
>
> > His is the financial investment, and D&D and Richard
> > share his ambitions. Good luck to them, without them the QL
is dead,
> > and anything that puts obstacles in their way is not
conducive to
> > furthering SMSQ to the benefit of the user.  After all the
buyers
> > of Q40/60 are QL users who are simply upgrading as we have
constantly
> > done since the first black box. This whole topic reminds me
of Alan
> > Sugar of Amstrad trying to block QL development for his own
reasons.
> >
> > I am completely neutral in this debate, I feel sorry for
> > Wolfgang, who is showing signs of wear. As a user, as I see
it,
> > the Q40/60 'lobby' were not involved in drawing up the
Eindhoven
> > license,. WHY NOT.
> First of all, I don't think it is a "lobby" - let's avoid these
words that
> have been used in a rather bad context.
Somebody else's word, not mine...
>
> I seem to remember that, at least, Peter Graf was fully aware
of the
> EIndhoven meeting. IIRC, he said here that he was too ill to
come.

>
> .
>
> > Why are their views less important than those
> > who sat  at  a  'round table' and cobbled together a license
that
> > suited them,
>
> THEY ARE NOT. I HAVE taken the views expressed here into
> account. It is just that, on a fundamental level (totally free
> binaries/restricted binary distribution) we don't agree.
Fine, no problem there, it is not your interpretation or decision
that are the point. I don't know enough about the mechanics to
venture an opinion, but must be guided by reasonable people. What
appears to be the problem is the perception by some that all is
MAYBE not as open as would be desired. That needs to be
addressed, I know you are trying to do this, you really need to
be a UN diplomat to sort it out.
>
> > why were Quanta not at this meeting,
> I don't know
> > why not other
> > meeting in UK and US, to get the input of the bulk of people
who are
> > affected?
>
> Because, then, we would still be having meetings!
Fine, but again fuels the perception.
>
> > It is no wonder 'conspiracy' is banded about.
>
> Oh, poppycock!
> I'm sorry, but this is just unbelievable.
> The process of how this came about has been set out here -
> several times IIRC.
Again the perception is about in some quarters, whether justified
or not. To paraphrase someone" it is not enough to do right, one
has got to be seen to do right"
>
> >Wolfgang, if
> > you don't listen to those who do not share your opinion, you
will kill
> > the patient that you are trying to save.
>
> Yes, that is true -but apparently, you (and others) and I have
a
> different opinion of what "listening" means.
> Apparently, if I don't agree with some, then that is because I
> haven't listened to them.
No I did not say that, I said listen, I think most QLers,
including myself, trust you  completely in this matter, and will
go  along with whatever you decide. What I have said is ,please
don't let past 'bad blood' between parties cause a split in the
QL community, a bit of diplomacy to smooth the perceptions of
some may be all that can be done.

You asked for users opinions, I think I shall get on with
installing the ADSL equipment that has just arrived. At least I
shall be able to retreat more quickly.

Good luck, sincerely,

Mike
>
> Wolfgang
>

Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE

[Richard Zidlicky]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:26:20PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
> 
> Richard Zidlicky wrote: 
> >> You can have free 'Open Source' code and Richard et al will write for it
> >> and Marcel and a few others will quit
> >
> > Did you ask Marcel?
> 
> He knows my opinion quite well, yes. And what he wrote is true. 

so I assume Roy was also correct when he claimed that it was agreed
not to take any additional roylaties for SMSQ beyound the 10 Euro
for TT.

Richard

RE: [ql-users] Plight of a Software House

[Norman Dunbar]

Morning Geoff,

You wrote :

>> QLib/EasyPTR allows you to make some professional looking programs. It's
>> just a pity that the latter is such a b*gg*r to learn.

Have you seen the (excellent) tutorial that was published in Quanta and I
think is available on Dilwyn's web site, on using EasyPTR ?
I thoroughly recommend it :o)


Regards,
Norman.

-
Norman Dunbar
Database/Unix administrator
Lynx Financial Systems Ltd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: 0113 289 6265
Fax: 0113 289 3146
URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com
-


This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and
may be confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not an addressee you
must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy
it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the
addressees of its existence or contents.  If you have received this email
and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx
Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.