Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 21:23, dndsystems1 wrote: > That is the wrong address you fool and you know it. Hmm, it's the address YOU use to post on here. Since it is foolish to use - what? > Do you think I > have not searched through that address, you have been informed of the > correct address to use but you will not use it, why? Even now you have > not contacted me on the D&D address but you have had me waiting for > over a week expecting it to come in, what can I do if you will not > send it. Everyone else around the world contacts us but you do not > know how to do it. YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR A WEEK? Ha! This is so ridiculous, it had me laughing for a minute. Let's set seom things straight, hmmm? First of all, I don't have to contact you. YOU have to initiate contact - after all, YOU are selling something that doesn't belong to you. Second I contaced you at the email address you used here in this list. Reply : silence. Third, I replied to an email (in JULY!) sent to me privately on a totally other matter by Derek, asking about this. Reply: silence. Fourth, after Tony Firshman made enormous efforts to get to you, Derek finally emailed me, giving me a choice of 2 email addresses. I used the first one he gave me. I sent you (D&D) a long email to that address, containing a copy of the one I later sent to the list,and telling you that I intened to put this email on the list. reply : achnowledgement of receipt - then silence. About a week later, I reminded you and asked for your reply. Reply : please use "proper channels". Guess what - at that time, I thought that the proper channel was this here list. > > I have contatced DEREK on the email he GAVE me for > > correspondence on this matter. > > > > You have had a copy of this email for a week on this. > > If you want to deny this, that's fine by me. > > > > > Licence money has been paid. > > TO WHOM? > > WHEN? (no reply here...) > > > > >I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to > > > me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. > > > > Hmm, that's NOT what Tony said to me. > > > > > > > > We have sold machines that do not have SMSQ/E - they boot into > QDOS > > > Classic instead but then you already know that fact?? > > > > On ROM? (no reply here) (...) > > > > If you sell SMSQ/E without a licence you are breaking the law - not > > me as you are trying to make out. > > > > Wolfgang > > Derek does not deal with this, that is why I asked him to point you to > me _after_ Tony Firshman assured me email(s) were coming in my > direction but they never did, did they? Why do youask Derek to point me to you - why don't you contact me, Are you trying to say that Derek never mlentioned my emails to you? > Whatever is said from now on I am going to offer you an olive branch - > do you understand? - you nicely email me with your concerns and I will > work through them with you. You must know the correct address by now, > just use it. It's the one you have use in this list, of course, isn't it? Please note that these are not my concerns, but yours. You are breaking tha if you are selling SMSQ/E without any licence. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 2:01, Jeremy Taffel wrote: > > Wolfgang, with the benefit of hindsight, don't you think it would have > been diplomatic to use this list to make the contact with D & D > instead of starting a war? I'm sure that a carefully worded question > posted to him publicly would have ensured you would have got the > response you were looking for. Ah, hindsight - 20/20 vision... To be quite frank - I'm not sure. D&D had a copy of the message posted to this list for a week before it was posted, including the mention that I intended to post this .No reply. So? Wolfgang
[ql-users] QDT web sight update
Guys, I finally got my web sight for QDT converted to my new web publishing tool. It now has two new images and progress table updates. hi color notebook page [updated] QDT installer [new] If anyone wants to take a look, it is at: http://www.jdh-stech.com I am working on the installer now and have a list of things still to do. If all goes well, I will release QDT into a very limited Beta around the end of the year. Progress is slow due to my many conflicting responsibilities, etc. but I continue to plod along. Jim
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 22:55, Dave P wrote: > > Until they submit the changes with source to him, he can't make them > 'official', so they can't sell them, thereby can't sell the Q60. Nothing stops them from selling the Q60 with SMSQ/E as it was, does it?. > So basically, Wolfgang has veto power over their ability to sell > machines, to some extent. Wrong. > They "can't" sell them with SMSQ/E until he > approves the changes. Then sell them without the changes. > This also requires them to contribute their > changes to other branches of SMSQ too, and to divulge their > intellectual property. NO. Read the licence again. quote: When such a proposal is made, the person proposing it may state whether its change/addition/modification is to be : - distributed in the official versions of the source and binary codes, or - distributed in the official versions of the binary codes only, or - not distributed in the official versions, but alongside them. If it is in the binary only, nobody (apart from me) gets to see it. It's the price you pay for trying to have unified versions. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 0:52, Mike MacNamara wrote: > > Hi Folks > I was going to keep out of this, I am not going to takes sides. > BUT, there seems to be an opinion that the License controlled by > Wolfgang is a final solution to the SMSQ debate. Well, legally - yes. > I would just like to note that several folks have not agreed to > this license, Indeed. > else they would have asked Wolfgang to be a > reseller, surely then, as they do not wish to agree to new terms, they > must be legally able to continue as they did before the license was > envisaged, No, sorry, this is wrong. If you don't agree with the licence, then you stop. > in other words before they can be held to have to comply > with a new set of rules, they would have to agree these changes. NO. Sorry,, this sounds harsh, but the licence holder may change the licence. If you don't agree wiht the licence, then you just must walk away. > Otherwise the new license would not apply to them. You can't decide to > change the terms of sale, long after you sold the item, without the > consent of the buyer. True - so nothing changes WITH THE ITEMS THEY HAVE SOLD UNDER THE OLD LICENCE. > If they don't want to be held liable to this > license, why should they pay a new charge, they will be able to > continue with the contract they already have In this respect, you are right. But, they are selling new versions now Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 20:34, Bill Waugh wrote: > Can't argue with that, but few things fit easily into a black or white > catagory Actually, I was hoping to get some explanation from D&D to make this entire thing a bit less black and a bit more grey... > what is occuring ( as usual ) is a discussion with many versions of the > same story and heaps of hypothetical scenarios, if and buts and maybe's > generating more emails than we have user's. :- > I'd rather you all spent your time developing the code, you probably > agree !!! Yes, but - the way I look at it now is that some people (or at least me) is trying to get a good version of SMSQ/E for every machine, including the Q60 (for example, the fast memory was incorporated into the official version of SMSQ/E) whereas some others just don't play by the rules but still profit from my work... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 0:40, dndsystems1 wrote: > No they are not illegal, the O/S is the same as it always was. Before > D&D started production a fault was repaired that had been there for > some time, very minor but it stopped the O/S performing as it should. Dennis, let me enlighten you a little bit here. Perhaps this will actually help you. The fact is that YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to repair a fault in the OS - just like you would not be allowed to take a book from an author and change some sentences in it because you find them better. The OS is NOT yours or anybody else's to change - unless the authior has agrred to it. Guess what : he has agreed to this - provided, however, that, if these changes are to incoprporated into e version sold by anyone, they are reported to AND AGREED TO by me. Has this happended? NO. > This is documented in QL Today and elsewhere, quite old and well > accepted, nothing to do with anything else, it was Q40 specific. That doesn't change anything. > Why > do you belive what has been written before? If nothing has changed why > is the O/S wrong today? The 'OS' isn't wrong. You are just selling something which you are not allowed to sell. > You have been lead up a false trail with no > evidence, unfortunately you believed it. And rightly so! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 21:42, dndsystems1 wrote: > The reply I will post with this should sort Wolfgangs problem out. I > get the impression he has always used the wrong address hence 'Black > hole syndrome' never mind he can take it all back later on :-) > There seems nothing to take back Wolfgang
Re: QRe: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 20:06, Phoebus Dokos wrote: (...) . More > than once I've sent email to demon.co.uk users and it got lost or > bounced. I'm not sure what's wrong (Adelphia tells me that's demon's > fault.. maybe so as adelphia has a lot of spammers amongst its > users...) nonetheless, it is a situation that is possible. In this case, I got an achnowledgment of receipt from Derek. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 0:19, dndsystems1 wrote: > I have lost a complete evenings work messing about with is silly email > stuff instead of working. A bit of a dent in the production schedule, > never mind its all for a good cause, or is it? Makes you wonder > sometimes. If I get to bed before 1:00am it won't be too bad, better > than the 4 hours I got yesterday. If it is any consolation to you, I have lost more than that. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 22:26, dndsystems1 wrote: > Peter has paid the licences in advance of sales. Sales to the end of > the year need to be paid at year end. Peter has asked Wolfgang for the > bank account to pay licence fees and although Peter has had replies > from Wolfgang on other matters the bank account is still a mystery to > Peter and therefore me. I formed the impression that the acount might > not have set up yet, I don't know. He has not asked me for that informationsince the licence has become in force! He has Tony's bank account, of ourse and canpay him directly, if he so wishes. He could send tony a cheque (or me). etc Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
> The money is not the issue really. > The main point of the license is to ensure there is only one approved > version in the field. YES > D&D, according to their adverts, are selling a > patched version. > > This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. > -- > QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 > tony@.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk >Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 > TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG > Exactly! WOlfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 17:49, Dave P wrote: > > but it's > still a very strong allegation without some lighter questioning first, > even if you had reached a point of going public. OK, you're not the only one to make this point and I can accept that. I was just pretty fed up. > > MAY ? > > Do they? > > I don't know, and nor do you. Yes I do - they don't. > My mistake. I think of "The Grafs" as the originator oif the rather spiffy > Q60, which is made by D&D. No doubt, the Graffs had an arrangement for > SMSQ/E which they may have transferred or sublicensed to D&D to make quite > lawfully. We do not know. See above. > Unfortunately, knowing may be very destructive, as knowing the license > fees paid means knowing exactly what D&D's sales are, and therefore what > production is, and if you knew how few units they may have sold, the scene > may become even more disheartened than it already is. Well, I never asked D&D to make their sale figures public, did I? I personally don't care whether they sold 1 or 100, even if I would prefer if they sold 1000s! > It's not the message, it's the voice. So my tone of voice wasn't appropriate. Message understood! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 18:03, Dave P wrote: (...) > I feel you do have authority. You're TT's representative in this matter. That's my "legal" authority, then... (...) > > Granted, this is a gross simplification, but that's how it looks. I never thought it had come accross like that. > How do you know that they weren't sitting on a stock of 25 pre- blown > EPROMS and have been nibbling away at these with sales, and would have > made appropriate arrangements when this got down to 2 or 3 EPROMS? This is > pure conjecture. Again, only D&D can clarify this. Because they hand't bought 25 licences from TT previously. > > Thanks fo the "technically" > > As I said previously, I hold your technical skills in highest regard. :-)) > This license creates so many grey areas. For example, I have a QXL card, > but no OS, yet one was originally supplied with it. Do I have to buy > another copy of SMSQ? This is not a grey area at all. If you buy a loaf of brad and lose it, are you entitled to a new one? I know a pretty bad analogy but still... Even so, you might want to contact your vendor to see whether he can supply you with a new version. > If I buy QPC do I have to pay for yet another full > copy of SMSQ or can I just pay the extra 10 Euros for each additional > version? [1] Well, the full copy of SMSQ/E costs only 10 EUR, unless the vendor wishes to charge more. However, if you buy QPC you pay for QPC. If you buy a new QPC, you buy a new version of SMSQ/E and should pay for it. (...) Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 19:57, Jochen Merz wrote: > > Hi, > > maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. >(...) That made matters pretty clear, didn't it? Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 6/11/2002 10:59:59 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > > > >On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Roy Wood wrote: > >> You are quite welcome to a copy of the free version of SMSQ which was >> supplied with it. I can email it to you if want. SMSQ/E was always a >> paid version and you can buy that if you want. > Actually his QXL as well as mine came from the same person and both of them had SMSQ/E 2.91 paid for (see my other email). I remember there was a price to pay for upgrading to the colour drivers one (see my other email again) and I do want it... yesterday ;-) (It wouldn't matter that much if I hadn't to test Q-Word -or better its graphics and midi output- on it) Phoebus P.S. Dave pls email me or ICQ me when you have time
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Roy Wood wrote: > You are quite welcome to a copy of the free version of SMSQ which was > supplied with it. I can email it to you if want. SMSQ/E was always a > paid version and you can buy that if you want. Thank you for the offer but you didn't supply the QXL and I still have a debt to the person who did. I was debating purchasing QPC but unfortunately I'm now a Mac user and the PC with the ISA slot is failing through old age. I am seriously debating the possibility of looking at uQLx and the possibility of getting the QXL running under linux/BSD. This won't help me directly because the Mac has no ISA slot, but I will be able to enjoy it if I can find a replacement mobo that has one on pricewatch.com. Actually, just found the perfect machine for it in my store room! Never mind! Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: > You cannot be serious, man. We have a contracted agreement with Quanta > to supply complete working motherboards as a minimum and that includes > some kind of O/S, as we have stuck rigidly to the contract conditions > the answer is er... no! Quanta have in effect granted us overdraft > facilities so we never go into the red at D&D and can afford to invest > in massive hardware projects like er... oh yes, the Q60. If your CPU > is any good? you might be able to sell it to Peter Graf who could > supply it to us and we could sell it to you :-) Hehehe :o) Sounds kinda contorted. Does this mean you're not allowed to sell spares? If someone's Q60 breaks and it's outside the warranty period, do they have to buy a whole new Q60? > I have lost a complete evenings work messing about with is silly email > stuff instead of working. I know how it goes. I have lost about 2 hours of ARM/E development time in the process of spitting fire at the unpolitik of it all! Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
One thing that puzzles me; Dennis states that Wolfgang used the wrong address so he never received it. However the "wrong" address seems to be the one that Derek uses to contact this list. I've never come across a "send only" email address before. Wolfgang, with the benefit of hindsight, don't you think it would have been diplomatic to use this list to make the contact with D & D instead of starting a war? I'm sure that a carefully worded question posted to him publicly would have ensured you would have got the response you were looking for. regards, Jeremy
Re: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003
Malcolm Cadman writes: > Has anyone thought of doing of doing a QL Calendar ? Ill vote for you to be Mr January 2003 ;) Per
Re: [ql-users] QXL II w/ full blown 68040
At 16:06 06/11/2002, you wrote: Hi all, I just installed a 33MHz 68040 (no EC) on my QXL-II and I have the other one (68EC040-25) as a spare. If anyone wants it, please let me know :-) What does EC stand for? I was thinking either "Extra Cool", or maybe "SMSQ/E Not Included"; but I don't think I'm allowed to say the latter unless TT pays me 10. Or something... :) -- Cheers, Ade. Be where it's at, B-Racing! http://b-racing.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Tarquin Mills writes: > In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. > In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch > and the Grafs had split, so could not. > In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I > find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,"use QDOS Classic", my Hopefully somethingll be sorted out by then. > message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms > keep shooting themselves in the foot? <> The "simple and stark" message, that incidentally also applies to a certain other beleaguered minority interest group in the painful process of publicly ripping itself apart, must be: Unite or Die ;) Per
[ql-users] QXL II w/ full blown 68040
Hi all, I just installed a 33MHz 68040 (no EC) on my QXL-II and I have the other one (68EC040-25) as a spare. If anyone wants it, please let me know :-) Phoebus -- This mail was written using The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ Running under FreeDOS beta (Nikita) - Kewl! Don't need Windoze anymore! -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: QRe: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Roy, as I said I will not comment on the matter, but I do want to comment on the "lost email" thing as I do have personal experience... More than once I've sent email to demon.co.uk users and it got lost or bounced. I'm not sure what's wrong (Adelphia tells me that's demon's fault.. maybe so as adelphia has a lot of spammers amongst its users...) nonetheless, it is a situation that is possible. Remember how I had to contact you through a third party sometimes? I had trouble with Tony's email as well (and other demon users)as he had with mine (the multitude of my email addresses non-withstanding). Phoebus -- Phoebus R. Dokos This mail was written using The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ Running under FreeDOS beta (Nikita) - Kewl! Don't need Windoze anymore! -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi Folks I was going to keep out of this, I am not going to takes sides. BUT, there seems to be an opinion that the License controlled by Wolfgang is a final solution to the SMSQ debate. I would just like to note that several folks have not agreed to this license, else they would have asked Wolfgang to be a reseller, surely then, as they do not wish to agree to new terms, they must be legally able to continue as they did before the license was envisaged, in other words before they can be held to have to comply with a new set of rules, they would have to agree these changes. Otherwise the new license would not apply to them. You can't decide to change the terms of sale, long after you sold the item, without the consent of the buyer. If they don't want to be held liable to this license, why should they pay a new charge, they will be able to continue with the contract they already have just a thought Regards to all Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: "Tarquin Mills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:03 PM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. > In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch > and the Grafs had split, so could not. > In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I > find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,"use QDOS Classic", my > message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms > keep shooting themselves in the foot? > > P.S. I am bringing 4 new keyboard membranes for sale. > > -- >Tarquin Mills > > ACCUS (Anglia Classic Computer Users Society) > http://www.planet14.sonow4u.co.uk/comp/accus/ > >
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
This license creates so many grey areas. For example, I have a QXL card, but no OS, yet one was originally supplied with it. Do I have to buy another copy of SMSQ? If I buy QPC do I have to pay for yet another full copy of SMSQ or can I just pay the extra 10 Euros for each additional version? [1] You are quite welcome to a copy of the free version of SMSQ which was supplied with it. I can email it to you if want. SMSQ/E was always a paid version and you can buy that if you want. Bopttom line, maybe D&D are trying to get something for nothing. I hope not, but the suspicion remains and I'll veto my Q60 purchase (which is some way off anyway) until this issue is resolved and license fees are shown to have been paid. I do not think this is down to money and I do not think that D&D are trying to steal anything. I think the problem is with the changes that have been made to SMSQ/E to make it work with the Qxx machines. -- 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] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Dave P" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: > > > Thanks for your support Dave, always welcome :-) > > Well, it's such a polarised debate, I figure I should at least take both > sides to be fair ;) > > Since you're here - what's the chance of a Q60 that comes without a > processor, for those of us that have 060's laying around? > > Dave > > You cannot be serious, man. We have a contracted agreement with Quanta to supply complete working motherboards as a minimum and that includes some kind of O/S, as we have stuck rigidly to the contract conditions the answer is er... no! Quanta have in effect granted us overdraft facilities so we never go into the red at D&D and can afford to invest in massive hardware projects like er... oh yes, the Q60. If your CPU is any good? you might be able to sell it to Peter Graf who could supply it to us and we could sell it to you :-) All our motherboard components and expansion cards must come from Peter as this is another contract we do not deviate from. It makes absolute sense, one point of quality control for guaranteed components and a quality build. I have lost a complete evenings work messing about with is silly email stuff instead of working. A bit of a dent in the production schedule, never mind its all for a good cause, or is it? Makes you wonder sometimes. If I get to bed before 1:00am it won't be too bad, better than the 4 hours I got yesterday. Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Tarquin Mills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:03 PM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. > In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch > and the Grafs had split, so could not. > In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I > find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,"use QDOS Classic", my > message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms > keep shooting themselves in the foot? > > P.S. I am bringing 4 new keyboard membranes for sale. > > -- >Tarquin Mills > > ACCUS (Anglia Classic Computer Users Society) > http://www.planet14.sonow4u.co.uk/comp/accus/ No they are not illegal, the O/S is the same as it always was. Before D&D started production a fault was repaired that had been there for some time, very minor but it stopped the O/S performing as it should. This is documented in QL Today and elsewhere, quite old and well accepted, nothing to do with anything else, it was Q40 specific. Why do you belive what has been written before? If nothing has changed why is the O/S wrong today? You have been lead up a false trail with no evidence, unfortunately you believed it. See you at the show, Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: QRe: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Roy, the compatibility problem isn't necessarily a problem. I mean if you get an SMSQ/E w/ background IO, better Fs and TCP/IP stack all rolled into one... I really don't care if Quill runs into it :-) That's the price of progress anyway :-) That is true for you because you are not one who sells and provides support for software. For those of us who are it is a nightmare. When TT changed one thing in SMSQ/E other things fell apart - and these are changes from someone who wrote the code. I know this because I got all of the test versions that most of you did not see. You only saw the versions that we thought worked and even then there were the occasional glitches. Furthermore, as Marcel has said all of the free work he has put in has been distributed in the source code whereas the secret patches ADVERTISED by D&D remain that. However I am fairly convinced that there was a separate agreement between Peter and Tony... (I don't remember where exactly I picked that up but I am certain that I did) and in that case D&D can do as they please. See Jochen's and Wolfgang's emails about this. Believe me I asked about this a long while ago from people who actually know. Despite the bitterness in his email (justified or not -as i said I don't have all the facts on the case so I cannot tell or judge and even if I had I wouldn't at least not here :-) - non withstanding), I have no bitterness. I like D&D as people and I have said on many occasions that I would rather they were a part of the resellers community rather than outside of it. Dennis makes a very interesting point on which nobody but D&D and their customers know how many Q60 were sold WITH SMSQ/E on ROM? Irrelevant if they advertise that they sell it when they have no licence to do so. Since i am a hopeless romantic and no matter how much (being a Greek) I like a good fight ;-))) I will theorise that there is another possibility that this is an information age "glitch" and not malicious intent (Which I had no signs of from both involved "parties" which I have found in personal dealings to be honest and trustworthy... that goes for Dennis, Derek AND Wolfgang (Names sorted alphabetically)). I observed in mailings that I exchanged with D&D in the past that some got lost... That was way before any of this discussion (in the timeframe that is inferred from the various emails) can it therefore be COMPLETELY unreasonable to say that D&D never received Wolfgang's mailings? There are people that cannot email me on my adelphia mailboxes as they are controlled by various spam blockers which throw out many mails and that's one reason that I created my own... Is it totally impossible that something similar happened here? Many times, emails that I send to demon.co.uk mailboxes get lost in the way (that has happened with you AND tony both of you using demon). It wasn't your fault and it wasn't mine either :-) True but I have seen the replies from D&D that they acknowledge the warnings that TF has sent them. If the email fails there is also a little thing called a telephone. BTW: Roy, did you get my email re SGC/SMSQ/E etc? I got the SGC this morning and I will pass it on for examination. I am useless at these things but I know a man P.S. I am not taking sides here, I would just wish this not to go further... however that's the last i am going to comment on the matter... I would rather it had been resolved before it came to this too but my natural insistence that people do not hide behind 'lost email' and other rubbish must out. -- 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] Software pirates in our midst?
D&D, according to their adverts, are selling a patched version. This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. Hmmm, another problem with the license. No because the licence forbids the distribution of unauthorised versions. Simple. Put the worms back in the can. -- 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] Software pirates in our midst?
Thanks for the clarification. As a member of the public, Wolfgang's approach aside, I can now see how he arrived there (just wish he gave us a chance to get up to speed too instead of throwing us in at the deep end! ;P) This was not a situation he arrived at without a great deal of pain. So, D&D are theiving scum. If you bought one, contact Wolfgang directly and offer to pay the license fee. Seems fair. No unfair if D&D are charging the public for something for which they have not entitlement and, furthermore are no paying for. -- 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] Software pirates in our midst?
In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch and the Grafs had split, so could not. In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,"use QDOS Classic", my message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms keep shooting themselves in the foot? P.S. I am bringing 4 new keyboard membranes for sale. -- Tarquin Mills ACCUS (Anglia Classic Computer Users Society) http://www.planet14.sonow4u.co.uk/comp/accus/
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Dave P wrote: > So basically, Wolfgang has veto power over their ability to sell machines, > to some extent. I thought they can sell it with QDOS classic? Anyway, if the patches are ok I see no reason for Wolfgang to reject them. > They "can't" sell them with SMSQ/E until he approves the changes. Only if the official version does not already work. > This also requires them to contribute their changes to other > branches of SMSQ too, and to divulge their intellectual property. The patches in question are Qx0 specific. And actually it's currently a one-way street in the other direction, they profit from MY work. Furthermore I have spent quite some time helping people getting their Qx0 code to work (stupid, stupid me). I'd be more than GLAD if some time I would get some contribution in return. Instead this BS is happening. Cheers, Marcel
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: > Thanks for your support Dave, always welcome :-) Well, it's such a polarised debate, I figure I should at least take both sides to be fair ;) Since you're here - what's the chance of a Q60 that comes without a processor, for those of us that have 060's laying around? Dave
Re: [ql-users] What the QL is really all about
Excellent Tony. Nice to hear something like this for a change. Have we truly forgotten why the hell we all keep this up? I haven't. I lug a huge bloody suitcase full of QL stuff across the Irish sea half a dozen times a year usually. I do it to help keep the QL scene alive, and to meet people I regard as close and dear friends. Come on Guys. Darren Branagh Director, Wicklow Web Centre Limited Computer Training, Web Design, Repairs sales & Upgrades. Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.wwc.ie - Original Message - From: Tony Firshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:26 PM Subject: [ql-users] What the QL is really all about > > After the recent unfortunate, sometimes uninformed, and sometimes > downright silly emails in ql-users about the SMSQ/E license, I was > absolutely delighted to get a letter from an 'octogenarian' customer > (one of the very few customers of any age this year) this morning to > remind me what I like about the QL scene, and why I am still around. > > I repaired her QL (for the second time after a ten year gap), but forgot > to tell her in advance that replacement mdv hardware was extra. I > simply scribbled a note on the invoice saying something like that, and > that it was her lucky day as she got it free. > > Incidentally the new membrane I fitted in 1990 was still in working > order, though brittle. It supported my theory that the main reason > membranes fail inside closed QLs is that the tails were bent very hard > back on themselves by Thorn-EMI just as they emerge from under the metal > plate. Give the tails a gentle curve and the membrane will last - even > after it becomes brittle. > > Here is her reply: > > > Dear Sir, > > Forgive the formality. I don't know your name. > > I think you really should know just how much your > cryptic message on my invoice (No. S07585) encouraged me. > It came at a time when other things were not going well and > my spirits were low. It was not just the sparing of my bank > account, very welcome with Christmas galloping up, but the > integrity and generosity translated into action and the > humerous [sic] explanation. As an octogenarian I deeply > appreciate that. Thank you very much. > > It is great to have my QL back in service. > > Yours sincerely, > > > I cannot but think it good that she is not on the internet (she could > have guessed 'tony' from my email) - but maybe she will read all about > it in Quanta (8-(# > -- > QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 > tony@.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk >Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 > TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG >
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Jochen Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > Hi, > > maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. > > Most of you know that, before Wolfgang became registrar, all > SMSQ/E related royalties and licenses matters went through me > to Tony. That was the fact for ALL SMSQ/E royalties, including > the Q40/Q60. > > > > > The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to > > > > sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or > > > > agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. > > > MAY ? > > > Do they? > > There is no secret about the SMSQ/E royalty for the Q40/Q60. > The agreement with Tony was, that Peter paid a fixed amount of > money to get Tony started (including a personal license for Peter, > if I remember correctly ... it's so long ago now) and every additional > licesens which was sold by Peter or QBranch had to be purchased > through me. > > Qbranch bought individual licenses directly from me. > Peter bought individual licenses directly from me. > D&D never purchased a license from me. > The last license purchase by Peter was early February 2002. > Then the whole discussion started. > After that, neither Peter nor D&D have ordered or paid any license to me. > > There was no "gap" - as long as Wolfgang's license was not settled > the route to purchase SMSQ/E licenses would have been through me. > To make sure that there is nothing I am not aware of, I called Tony a > moment ago and asked him - he confirmed that THERE IS NO > SPECIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIM AND ANYBODY > ELSE AND NO LICENSE MONEY HAS BEEN PAID TO HIM > (apart from me and Wolfgang). > > Jochen > Peter has paid the licences in advance of sales. Sales to the end of the year need to be paid at year end. Peter has asked Wolfgang for the bank account to pay licence fees and although Peter has had replies from Wolfgang on other matters the bank account is still a mystery to Peter and therefore me. I formed the impression that the acount might not have set up yet, I don't know. Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Dave P" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jochen Merz wrote: > > > maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. > > Thanks for the clarification. > > As a member of the public, Wolfgang's approach aside, I can now see how he > arrived there (just wish he gave us a chance to get up to speed too > instead of throwing us in at the deep end! ;P) > > So, D&D are theiving scum. If you bought one, contact Wolfgang directly > and offer to pay the license fee. Seems fair. > > Dave > > Thanks for your support Dave, always welcome :-) Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:47 AM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > Morning Dennis, > > now that you have responded, is there any chance that a meaningful exchange > of information can take place beteween yourselves (D&D) and Wolfgang to sort > out the problem withour further recousrse to name calling and public > accusations ? > > You say no-one has contacted you. > Wolfgang et al say differently. > You say you have paid TT and Wolfgans says TT says not. > > Someone somewhere is not communicating ! > > Please get it all sorted out before we have another flame fest on the list. > > > Cheers, > Norman. > Good evening Norman, The reply I will post with this should sort Wolfgangs problem out. I get the impression he has always used the wrong address hence 'Black hole syndrome' never mind he can take it all back later on :-) Dennis - D&D Systems > - > Norman Dunbar > Database/Unix administrator > Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. > mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk > Tel: 0113 289 6265 > Fax: 0113 289 3146 > URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com > - > > > -Original Message- > From: dndsystems1 [mailto:dndsystems1@;supanet.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > > > Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a > year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed > to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this > contact or is this above the contact he means? > > Licence money has been paid. I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to > me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. > > > > 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.
Re: OT: Sheep (Was: [ql-users] Development)
"Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò" wrote: > >> Hey Darren, > >> don't forget us Scots - we like them, too !!! > >> Regards, > >> norman. > >" we like them too " scuse me, scuse me, neither the Welsh or I > > Irish turn them into haggis (;-) > >Only joking I love a good haggis unfortunately there are a lot > > of poor one's ( plastic skin, grizzle and spice ) > Ahhh you Brits don't know how to eat :-) Ever tried Kokoretsi? > now that's a use for a sheep's intestines ;-) (And it's crunchy too > ;-) > Phoebus Well, ever has chittlens or KY's while in the states??? -- Paul Holmgren Hoosier Corps #33, L-6 2 57 300-C's in Indy
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Tony Firshman wrote: > The main point of the license is to ensure there is only one approved > version in the field. > D&D, according to their adverts, are selling a patched version. > > This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. Hmmm, another problem with the license. Until they submit the changes with source to him, he can't make them 'official', so they can't sell them, thereby can't sell the Q60. So basically, Wolfgang has veto power over their ability to sell machines, to some extent. They "can't" sell them with SMSQ/E until he approves the changes. This also requires them to contribute their changes to other branches of SMSQ too, and to divulge their intellectual property. Can. Of. Worms. *shudders* Glad I'm not stuck in this position. :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > On 5 Nov 2002, at 23:20, dndsystems1 wrote: > > > Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a > > year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed > > to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this > > contact or is this above the contact he means? > > Ahh, at last a reaction. > Just for the record, this is a blatant lie. > I have contacted YOU on "dndsystems1" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in this matter. That is the wrong address you fool and you know it. Do you think I have not searched through that address, you have been informed of the correct address to use but you will not use it, why? Even now you have not contacted me on the D&D address but you have had me waiting for over a week expecting it to come in, what can I do if you will not send it. Everyone else around the world contacts us but you do not know how to do it. > > I have contatced DEREK on the email he GAVE me for > correspondence on this matter. > > You have had a copy of this email for a week on this. > If you want to deny this, that's fine by me. > > > Licence money has been paid. > TO WHOM? > WHEN? > > > >I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to > > me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. > > Hmm, that's NOT what Tony said to me. > > > > > We have sold machines that do not have SMSQ/E - they boot into QDOS > > Classic instead but then you already know that fact?? > > On ROM? > > > Etc. etc. etc. this is stupid. Has Wolfgang had a tap on the head > > recently? (a great cure for water on the brain as it happens). > > Just address this matter, irony I can do without. > > > Do you, Wolfgang, still intend to send this mystery email to me? > > No. > > > If not why not? > > Oh, for various reasons. > First of all, I don't send out 'mystery emails'. > Second, Derek ACKNOWLEDGED to me that he had received my > prior email which did contain a copy of the message I intend(ed) to > send to this list. If you two aren't speaking to each other, that's > NOT my concern. Both of you are acting for D&D. > Third, it is up to you to request to become a reseller. If you don't,n > you are at fault. Despite that, I DID TAKE the initiative to contact > you. You know what your reaction was, i.e. none. > > > Wolfgang, more like WolfGANGSTER, menacingly demanding money without > > an invoice. Watch out, this Wolfgangster bloke's a nutter :-))) > . > > If you sell SMSQ/E without a licence you are breaking the law - not > me as you are trying to make out. > > Wolfgang Derek does not deal with this, that is why I asked him to point you to me _after_ Tony Firshman assured me email(s) were coming in my direction but they never did, did they? Whatever is said from now on I am going to offer you an olive branch - do you understand? - you nicely email me with your concerns and I will work through them with you. You must know the correct address by now, just use it. Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Dave P" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: > > > Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a > > year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed > > to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this > > contact or is this above the contact he means? > > Excuse me for pointing out the flaw in this, but if you were aware that > Wolfgang, Tony and Derek agreed to communicate about this issue, you have > just admitted there was prior communication and that you (the company) > were aware of this issue. I was waiting for an email that never arrived, I am still waiting, I think he is using the wrong address, see other posting. > > > Licence money has been paid. I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to > > me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. > > This is a private business matter, but for the sake of transparency and > defusing the serious allegation, would you care to outline to the group > what arrangement you have made? > No not here it must be to Wolfgang in private, as all of this should be. > > Wolfgang, more like WolfGANGSTER, menacingly demanding money without > > an invoice. Watch out, this Wolfgangster bloke's a nutter :-))) > > Dennis, please use this opportunity to take the high ground, not fight to > see who can get lowest in the gutter? ;o) > > That's my job! ;P > > Dave > > Tony Firshman kept emailing me telling me of an important email coming in from Wolfgang _and_ that he was having trouble contacting me, so yes I know all that but where is it so I can respond? The whole thing sounds like a wind up or joke. I did laugh when I first read it, difficult not to. I think I know what the problem has been. We will see. Dennis - D&D Systems
[ql-users] Re: Q40 at last
??? 6/11/2002 4:28:36 ??, ?/? Tony Firshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: >>(And not taking sides In any case I am ABSOLUTELY certain that I am >>not violating ANY law as my Q40 is a used one bought originally from Q- >>Branch... :-) >Those were sold prior to the license, and TT was paid royalties via JMS >- you are OK (8-)# > See Tony, after all I got a Q40 from Q-Branch... it took sometime but I got it :-D (I was unfortunate enough to fall into the problematic gap in production...) Seems like my luck is changing... now if I can get Tony to manufacture the little TV toy that I am designing based on the QL (It's really for my daughter but hopefully will get somewhere further than that as well... It HAS to have Minerva as there's no decent child's toy not in some way connected with LEGO (Big fan)...) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Development
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 at 15:28:28, Norman Dunbar wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > >Hi Phoebus, > >listen, I'm a Scotsman living and working in England, married to an English >woman and working in a software hose full of English people - and you think >your the first to taunt :o) ha ha - how many Englishmen then can you fit in a 'hose'. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 at 08:46:11, Phoebus Dokos wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > >Wolfgang, >I was under the impression that Peter had acquired (ie paid) the rights >to resell/modify SMSQ/E... Since D&D systems act as his agents under >British (and American) Common law (which not only gives them liability >but also benefits), they are entitled to distribute SMSQ/E legally. >They do not have the right to sell if for any other system but only for >the Qx0 of course. All this of course is true provided that Peter DOES >carry the right to modify/resell/develop SMSQ/E (which I believe is >true). >Even it isn't so, I do not believe that D&D would want to "hijack" the >software only that there's an honest misunderstanding somewhere > >I hope :-) Woldgang will have to reply to this. I am pretty sure that, although Peter offered, no money changed hands. > >(And not taking sides In any case I am ABSOLUTELY certain that I am >not violating ANY law as my Q40 is a used one bought originally from Q- >Branch... :-) Those were sold prior to the license, and TT was paid royalties via JMS - you are OK (8-)# It is a great pity that Wolfgang felt he had to make this public. I saw what was going on in private, and believe me, we all tried very hard to get a sensible dialogue going. I hope we still can. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
[ql-users] What the QL is really all about
After the recent unfortunate, sometimes uninformed, and sometimes downright silly emails in ql-users about the SMSQ/E license, I was absolutely delighted to get a letter from an 'octogenarian' customer (one of the very few customers of any age this year) this morning to remind me what I like about the QL scene, and why I am still around. I repaired her QL (for the second time after a ten year gap), but forgot to tell her in advance that replacement mdv hardware was extra. I simply scribbled a note on the invoice saying something like that, and that it was her lucky day as she got it free. Incidentally the new membrane I fitted in 1990 was still in working order, though brittle. It supported my theory that the main reason membranes fail inside closed QLs is that the tails were bent very hard back on themselves by Thorn-EMI just as they emerge from under the metal plate. Give the tails a gentle curve and the membrane will last - even after it becomes brittle. Here is her reply: Dear Sir, Forgive the formality. I don't know your name. I think you really should know just how much your cryptic message on my invoice (No. S07585) encouraged me. It came at a time when other things were not going well and my spirits were low. It was not just the sparing of my bank account, very welcome with Christmas galloping up, but the integrity and generosity translated into action and the humerous [sic] explanation. As an octogenarian I deeply appreciate that. Thank you very much. It is great to have my QL back in service. Yours sincerely, I cannot but think it good that she is not on the internet (she could have guessed 'tony' from my email) - but maybe she will read all about it in Quanta (8-(# -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 at 21:06:28, Dave P wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > > > >On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jochen Merz wrote: > >> maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. > >Thanks for the clarification. > >As a member of the public, Wolfgang's approach aside, I can now see how he >arrived there (just wish he gave us a chance to get up to speed too >instead of throwing us in at the deep end! ;P) > >So, D&D are theiving scum. >If you bought one, contact Wolfgang directly >and offer to pay the license fee. Seems fair. The money is not the issue really. The main point of the license is to ensure there is only one approved version in the field. D&D, according to their adverts, are selling a patched version. This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
OT: Sheep (Was: [ql-users] Development)
??? 6/11/2002 3:50:19 ??, ?/? "Bill Waugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > > >- Original Message - >From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:22 AM >Subject: RE: [ql-users] Development > > >> >> Hey Darren, >> >> don't forget us Scots - we like them, too !!! >> >> Regards, >> norman. > >" we like them too " scuse me, scuse me, neither the Welsh or I Irish >turn them into haggis (;-) > >Only joking I love a good haggis unfortunately there are a lot of poor >one's ( plastic skin, grizzle and spice ) > Ahhh you Brits don't know how to eat :-) Ever tried Kokoretsi? now that's a use for a sheep's intestines ;-) (And it's crunchy too ;-) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Development
- Original Message - From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:22 AM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Development > > Hey Darren, > > don't forget us Scots - we like them, too !!! > > Regards, > norman. " we like them too " scuse me, scuse me, neither the Welsh or I Irish turn them into haggis (;-) Only joking I love a good haggis unfortunately there are a lot of poor one's ( plastic skin, grizzle and spice ) All the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > On 5 Nov 2002, at 20:07, Bill Waugh wrote: > > (...) > > There are not enough of us left that we should start an us and them > > war. > > It's true that we are a small cmmunity. But surely that doesn't > mean that people should be behaving in an improper manner.? > > Wolfgang Can't argue with that, but few things fit easily into a black or white catagory what is occuring ( as usual ) is a discussion with many versions of the same story and heaps of hypothetical scenarios, if and buts and maybe's generating more emails than we have user's. I'd rather you all spent your time developing the code, you probably agree !!! All the best - Bill > > >
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jochen Merz wrote: > maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. Thanks for the clarification. As a member of the public, Wolfgang's approach aside, I can now see how he arrived there (just wish he gave us a chance to get up to speed too instead of throwing us in at the deep end! ;P) So, D&D are theiving scum. If you bought one, contact Wolfgang directly and offer to pay the license fee. Seems fair. Dave
[ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003
Has anyone thought of doing of doing a QL Calendar ? -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi, maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. Most of you know that, before Wolfgang became registrar, all SMSQ/E related royalties and licenses matters went through me to Tony. That was the fact for ALL SMSQ/E royalties, including the Q40/Q60. > > > The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to > > > sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or > > > agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. > > MAY ? > > Do they? There is no secret about the SMSQ/E royalty for the Q40/Q60. The agreement with Tony was, that Peter paid a fixed amount of money to get Tony started (including a personal license for Peter, if I remember correctly ... it's so long ago now) and every additional licesens which was sold by Peter or QBranch had to be purchased through me. Qbranch bought individual licenses directly from me. Peter bought individual licenses directly from me. D&D never purchased a license from me. The last license purchase by Peter was early February 2002. Then the whole discussion started. After that, neither Peter nor D&D have ordered or paid any license to me. There was no "gap" - as long as Wolfgang's license was not settled the route to purchase SMSQ/E licenses would have been through me. To make sure that there is nothing I am not aware of, I called Tony a moment ago and asked him - he confirmed that THERE IS NO SPECIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIM AND ANYBODY ELSE AND NO LICENSE MONEY HAS BEEN PAID TO HIM (apart from me and Wolfgang). Jochen
[ql-users] OT: Testing DOS Browser - Please disregard
This is a test = Please disregard -- This mail was written using The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ Running under FreeDOS beta (Nikita) - Kewl! Don't need Windoze anymore! -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have no illusions in this respect - some people have gone clearly > on record (e.g. Richard Zidlicky) to tell that they do not feel that I > have such an authority. I can perfectly live with that. It also means > that, in the eyes of these people I certainly don't have a "perceived" > (nice turn of phrase, that) authority. I feel you do have authority. You're TT's representative in this matter. > What happened here, is that people were actually given a say in > the matter, i.e. the drafting of the licence - and then, not satisfied > at not having got what they wanted, they decided to boycott > everything. The person who drew up the license had a predefined requirement list which was inflexible - all flexibility occured only in unimportant areas. The important areas over which there was so much contention were decided by the dealers, in the interest of the dealers, before the users were even consulted. Granted, this is a gross simplification, but that's how it looks. Now, clearly, the dealers in question are highly considered and very capable people doing this for love, which makes it palatable. > the presumption is that D&D have sold Q60s with SMSQ/E - after > all, this is the way the machine has always been sold. > If only they had simply told me - "we have not sold one single > machine with SMSQ/E". How do you know that they weren't sitting on a stock of 25 pre-blown EPROMS and have been nibbling away at these with sales, and would have made appropriate arrangements when this got down to 2 or 3 EPROMS? This is pure conjecture. Again, only D&D can clarify this. > Thanks fo the "technically" As I said previously, I hold your technical skills in highest regard. > Excuse me, but what cooperation? D&D and I don't HAVE TO > cooperate (even though, still, I'd like to - let me go on record for > this!). > That also depends on the buyers of SMSQ/E. I for one, would not > have bought a Q60 under these circumstances. If you do, knowing > that you are using a pirated copy of an OS and that the people > gining it to you had not right to do so, then that's your decision. This license creates so many grey areas. For example, I have a QXL card, but no OS, yet one was originally supplied with it. Do I have to buy another copy of SMSQ? If I buy QPC do I have to pay for yet another full copy of SMSQ or can I just pay the extra 10 Euros for each additional version? [1] Bopttom line, maybe D&D are trying to get something for nothing. I hope not, but the suspicion remains and I'll veto my Q60 purchase (which is some way off anyway) until this issue is resolved and license fees are shown to have been paid. Dave [1] I still haven't successfully paid for this QXL card. This hasn't been forgotten, and I shall pay asap.
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Just DON'T assume that I haven't tried to settle this previously in a > discreet and diplomatic way. Dude! :o) Ok, so this was a mistep because you got the wrong tone, even if the message was right. There is now public awareness of the ambiguity of D&D's license position. Chances are that they ARE ripping off SMSQ/E, but it's still a very strong allegation without some lighter questioning first, even if you had reached a point of going public. > > The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to > > sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or > > agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. > MAY ? > Do they? I don't know, and nor do you. Only D&D can clear up the situation. > > You may be right, but that is hardly the point. > > Oh, but it is. > The problem is that, right now, I'm NOT concerned with 'The Grafs' > as you put it. > I have no idea how "the Grafs" are involved in this. All I see is that > d&d are selling the Q60, without a licence. My mistake. I think of "The Grafs" as the originator oif the rather spiffy Q60, which is made by D&D. No doubt, the Graffs had an arrangement for SMSQ/E which they may have transferred or sublicensed to D&D to make quite lawfully. We do not know. Unfortunately, knowing may be very destructive, as knowing the license fees paid means knowing exactly what D&D's sales are, and therefore what production is, and if you knew how few units they may have sold, the scene may become even more disheartened than it already is. It's not the message, it's the voice. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: > Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a > year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed > to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this > contact or is this above the contact he means? Excuse me for pointing out the flaw in this, but if you were aware that Wolfgang, Tony and Derek agreed to communicate about this issue, you have just admitted there was prior communication and that you (the company) were aware of this issue. > Licence money has been paid. I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to > me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. This is a private business matter, but for the sake of transparency and defusing the serious allegation, would you care to outline to the group what arrangement you have made? > Wolfgang, more like WolfGANGSTER, menacingly demanding money without > an invoice. Watch out, this Wolfgangster bloke's a nutter :-))) Dennis, please use this opportunity to take the high ground, not fight to see who can get lowest in the gutter? ;o) That's my job! ;P Dave
RE: Sheep (Was: [ql-users] Development)
Well don't let it happen again :o) - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:phoebus@;dokos-gr.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 4:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Sheep (Was: [ql-users] Development) ??? 6/11/2002 10:52:20 ??, ?/? Norman Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > >I shall forgive you then :o) Oh your kindness amazes me sire :-) Phoebus 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.
OT: Sheep (Was: [ql-users] Development)
??? 6/11/2002 10:52:20 ??, ?/? Norman Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > >I shall forgive you then :o) Oh your kindness amazes me sire :-) Phoebus
RE: RE: [ql-users] Development
I shall forgive you then :o) - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Phoebus Dokos [mailto:phoebus@;dokos-gr.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 3:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RE: [ql-users] Development At 10:28 ðì 6/11/2002, you wrote: >Hi Phoebus, > In that case I deeply sympathise :-) and I hereby retract my comments :-D Phoebus 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.
RE: RE: [ql-users] Development
At 10:28 ðì 6/11/2002, you wrote: Hi Phoebus, listen, I'm a Scotsman living and working in England, married to an English woman and working in a software hose full of English people - and you think your the first to taunt :o) Actually, my wife is from Yorkshire and they all want to be a separate country from England :o) In that case I deeply sympathise :-) and I hereby retract my comments :-D Phoebus
RE: RE: [ql-users] Development
Hi Phoebus, listen, I'm a Scotsman living and working in England, married to an English woman and working in a software hose full of English people - and you think your the first to taunt :o) Actually, my wife is from Yorkshire and they all want to be a separate country from England :o) Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:phoebus@;dokos-gr.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 3:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: [ql-users] Development Oh it already has... and unfortunately for you, there are greeks watching this list ;-) (And we're the first ones to taunt ;-) hee-hee *Evil Laughter* ' 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.
Re: RE: [ql-users] Development
??? 6/11/2002 9:53:53 ??, ?/? Norman Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > >Cheers Darren, > >Puts a whole new meaning tio 'animal lovers' doesn't it :o) > >I suggest we stop here before it gets too far out of hand Oh it already has... and unfortunately for you, there are greeks watching this list ;-) (And we're the first ones to taunt ;-) hee-hee *Evil Laughter* ' Phoebus
RE: [ql-users] Development
Cheers Darren, Puts a whole new meaning tio 'animal lovers' doesn't it :o) I suggest we stop here before it gets too far out of hand ... regards, norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Darren Branagh [mailto:darrenb@;esatlink.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Development Duly noted Norman!! Forgot about that; it must be a celtic thing..:-)) 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.
Re: [ql-users] Development
Duly noted Norman!! Forgot about that; it must be a celtic thing..:-)) Darren Branagh Director, Wicklow Web Centre Limited Computer Training, Web Design, Repairs sales & Upgrades. Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.wwc.ie - Original Message - From: Norman Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:22 AM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Development > > Hey Darren, > > don't forget us Scots - we like them, too !!! > > Regards, > norman. > > - > Norman Dunbar > Database/Unix administrator > Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. > mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk > Tel: 0113 289 6265 > Fax: 0113 289 3146 > URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com > - > > > -Original Message- > From: Darren Branagh [mailto:darrenb@;esatlink.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ql-users] Development > > > > Marcel wrote:- > > For years now there have been jokes flying between us over how much Irishmen > and Welshmen like sheep. > 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. >
Re: [ql-users] 10BaseT Ethernet on the Q40/And of course a stupid question :-)
Phoebus wrote: > >> Also, does anybody have info on how the QXL talks to the > >> ISA bus? It would be interesting (to say the least) to put the > >> QXL there and use it together with the Q40 ;- > > > >Well, the sources are all there... > > > >Marcel > > ? don't have them... YET :-) Just getting into gear here marcel When you get them, have a look in the SMSQ-PCFiles ZIP archive. Amongst many other interesting documents (all in MS Word format, unfortunately), you'll find one called PCInt3.DOC. Here's the abstract: "This document describes the principles of the QXL-PC communications and details the code and timing on both sides. The protocols are also outlined." Regards, John -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 9:38, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > Morning Wolfgang, > > ok, I accept all your points that you DID attempt to contact D&D for > information, advice, etc - it would have been better, IMHO, if you had > said that in your original email. Thanks. Yes, perhaps I should have said that. I just presumed the everybody would assume that I would not send out a message like that on this list without trying to contact D&D beforehand. Wrong presumption, my fault. Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 9:47, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > Morning Dennis, > > now that you have responded, is there any chance that a meaningful > exchange of information can take place beteween yourselves (D&D) and > Wolfgang to sort out the problem withour further recousrse to name > calling and public accusations ? > > You say no-one has contacted you. Ah, it is true that I did not contact Dennis Personally - I contacted D&D and later Derek. Does this change anything? > Wolfgang et al say differently. > You say you have paid TT and Wolfgans says TT says not. Dennis, if you HAVE paid TT, could you please, please, please tell me so (even privately if you wish), especially when & how? > > Someone somewhere is not communicating ! Let's still give it the benefit of doubt. > Please get it all sorted out before we have another flame fest on the > list. I'm all for it! Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Morning Dennis, now that you have responded, is there any chance that a meaningful exchange of information can take place beteween yourselves (D&D) and Wolfgang to sort out the problem withour further recousrse to name calling and public accusations ? You say no-one has contacted you. Wolfgang et al say differently. You say you have paid TT and Wolfgans says TT says not. Someone somewhere is not communicating ! Please get it all sorted out before we have another flame fest on the list. Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: dndsystems1 [mailto:dndsystems1@;supanet.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this contact or is this above the contact he means? Licence money has been paid. I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. 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.
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi Geoff, >> In fairness to Wolfgang let it be said that this is not a new problem. I >> have known about it for some weeks, and you can be certain that a lot of >> activity has gone on in the background to try to resolve the situation. It seems that a certian number of people knew about the problem, while the rest of us didn't. It was therefore quite easy to assume that nothing had been done etc, because Wolfgang didn't mention anyhting in his original email. >> Some time ago D & D approached me about distributing some Just Words! >> programs with the Q60. I gave a fairly lengthy reply but never heard >> anything further. This I find unbusinesslike and discourteous. I do believe I read about your feeling on this matter in QL TOADY ! Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk 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.
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Morning Wolfgang, ok, I accept all your points that you DID attempt to contact D&D for information, advice, etc - it would have been better, IMHO, if you had said that in your original email. Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wlenerz@;free.fr] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On 5 Nov 2002, at 17:28, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > Indeed we do, so here's my take on it. Good! > When your initial email came through, I though 'oh bloody hell, the > shit is really going to hit the fan now !'. Why ? Because in a public > forum you made quite serious accusations against other parties. Now, > whether or not your accusations are true, a public forum is not the > place to be making them. Actually I agree. And since this seems to be such an important point for many people here, I'll break one of my rules and tell you that I had sent copy of this email to D&D .. ONE WEEK AGO already. 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.
RE: [ql-users] Development
Hey Darren, don't forget us Scots - we like them, too !!! Regards, norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Darren Branagh [mailto:darrenb@;esatlink.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Development Marcel wrote:- For years now there have been jokes flying between us over how much Irishmen and Welshmen like sheep. 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.
Re: [ql-users] ZX Emulators
Hello Phoebus, > anyone knows where I can get the complete version of Zm/HT > and ZeXCel? I understand Ergon released them in the PD but > the files out there don't have the full set of utilities etc... What do you exactly mean for the full set of utilities? If I remember well all the files of the ZM suites were enclosed including manuals apart probably the ZX tape (for obvious reasons) with the conversion utilities (but the files are included in ZM format and with some tricks they could be transferred via Interface 1 to a real Spectrum). In any case provided you have at least a QPC running on a decent PC (i.e. > 800 MHz Athlon or Pentium) I would not care using ZM/hT any longer. > I was also wondering if anyone of Ergon fame is listening if > they also plan to release the sources as we could update the > emulators to use Gd2 (therefore having the full Spectrum > palette... and even be able to play games like Karnov the way > they were supposed to look :-) About this point here is the scenario view from my standpoint: 1. To be verified whether Marco Ternelli (the developer of the 68000 core) whether he agrees in releasing the source code 2. Find time in order to collect again all the sources, clean them, try to recompile them, write short information for usage etc. This is all but simple as much of the development was done for instance on Minerva and now I can only work on SMSQE / QPC so some compatibility problems could come out. Also the PE interface was done with Easyptr. Does a GD2 version of Easyptr exist now? Frankly speaking all the story appears complicated to say the least. Added to this I have also to say that in 4 or 5 years I had a so small feedback on ZeXcel (even if it was freeware almost from the start) that I am a bit sceptic in embarking in this work (apart from the fact that the time that I could devote to the task is almost 0 at the moment). I agree that it would be nice to have a GD2 version. That's it for the moment regards Davide Santachiara
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 16:59, Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote: > I never said that THAT was promised, I said that THESE features would > qualify as a completely new product :-) Features like background I/O > were promised at one point or another :-) By whom? > That's why I asked :-) 10 Euros isn't a great fee, that's true... I > was just challenging the principle of it... Right, so let's put the amount aside for a moment and talk about the principle of it. Let's presume you have a Q60. You ask D&D to supply you a new version of SMSQ/E (on ROM or disk, doesn't matter). Under the licence, D&D is NOT obliged to charge for it. Now you buy a second Q60. You get a new copy of SMSQ/E and you MUST pay for it. You object to that because you already have a copy of SMSQ/E and should not pay for the ne one? Alright, then you surely also expect to get the second Q60 for free, after all you already have one. Let's also assume, for the sake of argument that smsq/e for QPC & Q60 were totally the same, and that you already had a Q60. When yu but QPC you get a new version of SMSQ/E and pay for it. > Again, that doesn't mean > that I will try to avoid paying the amount... But I do have every > right to disagree with it. You have the right to disagree with everything, but I think that your position would not be the correct one. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 15:47, Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote: > I have to agree with Bill (and Bill Cable) on more than one > levels... > > Apart from what's legal (or not legal), there should be a level > of reason among users, vendors and developers. Oh yes, please! > Totally new means that it does > something that wasn't there originally and with the exception > of the GD2, as Bill (Waugh) pointed out, everything that wass > promised to us was never delivered. Hmm, I must have been living in another world. I did not but an OS whereby, at the time of purchase, I was promised that I would get more features for free. Oh, there was talk that several things lmight be incorporated into the OS in the future, but I have NEVER has a promise from TT in that respect. The ONLY time he promised something was when he got paid to do the colour drivers for the QXL. He promised he'd do them, and he delivered - in the process also doing them for Q60 (and QPC in part). > Under that assumption > SMSQ/E from D&D is indeed an upgrade and not a completely > new O/S. Wrong -not if you buy it in a new machine. > Now if TT (or somebody else) shows me an SMSQ/E > with meta drivers, memory protection, embeded microGui etc.. > .then yes I would consider that a new product but what is > now... is not new (maybe better implemented... but most of > them were there originally and newer versions just ironed out > some bugs)... > > > Now on what's LEGAL, Wolfgang is absolutely right, provided > that SMSQ/E is a NEW product which after some thought I > don't think it is... just an upgrade... We all have been > operating under that assumption else many QPC sales > wouldn't be possible right? > No, that's just not true. Moreover, if you buy two copies of QPC and get sold two SMSQ/E to go with them, TT will get money twice. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 17:23, Dave P wrote: > Wolfgang, this email of yours is wrong on so many levels. > > Aside from any legal flaws in your argument, and there are a couple of > great big ones, you have a responsibility to handle these issues in a > discreet and diplomatic manner. This message is indiscreet, > undiplomatic, and certainly libellous. Indiscreet, undiplomatic - yes. Just DON'T assume that I haven't tried to settle this previously in a discreet and diplomatic way. > As for the legal arguments, releasing software under a new license > does not automatically make that license applicable to all previous or > parallel versions. That depends on the previous licence, doesn't it? > The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to > sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or > agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. MAY ? Do they? > Any such > activity is absolutely legal, and your accusation that it is not is > not only wrong (due to lack of evidence, not finding of fact) but > places you in a very VERY unenviable position. I'm getting used to being in that position. > Up until this moment, I have felt you've been working in the best > interest of the SMSQ/E community, but having read this very > ill-advised post, I can only conclude that you do not posses the > diplomacy skills required of a registrar. OK, that's your point of view. > Accusing others of impropriety without very solid evidence, in such a > public forum, is an impropriety in itself. On the other hand, it may be the only way of getting a response that MAYBE shows me that I have been wrong. > You may be right, but that is hardly the point. Oh, but it is. The problem is that, right now, I'm NOT concerned with 'The Grafs' as you put it. I have no idea how "the Grafs" are involved in this. All I see is that d&d are selling the Q60, without a licence. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 16:13, Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote: > 3. I and I believe > others up until now were under the impression that according to our > original "terms of purchase" we were entitled to free upgrades. That hasn't changed, has it? > That > was the idea behind QPC (where the price for an update covered mainly > Marcel's work... the fact that part of this work was done on SMSQ/E to > bring it to up to par with QPC it's totally irrelevant to the OS > itself and very relevant to what Marcel charges). To be fair, though, you could also get free upgrades for SMSQ/E on the Q60. 4. For D&D (as both > Dave and Bill said) we cannot really say what really goes on until > either D. or D. (sic!) say their side of their story (as it's only > fair :-). Yes, of course it is. > However did anybody ever consider that this is not a CD > we're talking about here but an EPROM which needs to be burned and > then tested? That doesn't change anything, does it? > Do they have to provide that for free too according to > the SMSQ/E license? Are you suggesteing that they are selling the Q60 with untested software and that the user gets a test version? > My personal opinion is that they shouldn't... it's > not the same thing as copying a CD (which as we said -Dave as well as > me and others when the original license was discussed-) should be > allowed to be copied by PD libraries and even (why not) a very small > fee charged for all their trouble, shipping etc... Just let's clarify the debate and distinguish, as the licence does, between source code and compiled code. For source code, what does the licence say? quote: Any person may distribute the source code to others, provided however that the following conditions are adhered to by the person thus distributing the source : - Such a distribution must be made entirely free of charge - no fees whatsoever, for copying or the media on which the software is copied or otherwise, may be levied. The distribution of the source code must contain a copy of this licence and a clear indication that this licence must be read and agreed upon by the recipient before using the source code. - Such a distribution may only be made in either of two forms: Via a CDROM or via Email. · Via CDROM Exceptionally and only if distribution is made via CDROM, the person distributing the source code may request 3 IRCs and a blank CDROM from the recipient. All of the software, including the documentation and this licence must be distributed on the CDROM. ... unquote. That DOESN'T stop you from sending the source out to anybody, does it? As to binary, or compiled code, that may only be distributed (sold!) through resellers. > That hardly has > ANYTHING to do with the distribution of SMSQ/E and I think that > everyone would agree that the pursuit of a hobby, doesn't mean you > need to blow your money away... OK 10 EUR per new copy is blowing you money away. Then, of course, you will NEVER buy a Q40, because that costs so much more... > (Some people ie. me don't have that > much and the fact that we do love the platform doesn't mean we need to > lose money on it... For example if I ran a PD library service (which I > do in some form) and I provide SMSQ/E I should be able to charge > something for the lost time and effort. Yes, 3 IRCs. > Additionally, having to send > my SMSQ/E version back to the registrar so my buddy that wants to > check it out (even if no intention to incorporate the changes back to > the original version exists) (since no CVS in the usual form exists) > is hindering development than encouraging it. Sorry, let me again quote the licence to you quote As an exception to the prohibition of distribution of binary versions of the software other than through the resellers, you are hereby granted the right to distribute binary versions of the software to a maximum of 10 different persons (whatever the number and moment in time of the changes/additions/modifications you make), provided however that: (a) you have made a change/addition/modification to the software compared to the official version and (b) the person receiving the software from you undertakes to destroy the binary version - after 2 months of receipt thereof, - as soon as you inform such person that the version is no longer a test version but a final version, - as soon as any such change has been submitted to the registrar and accepted by him for inclusion in the official version whatever comes first. The person receiving the binaries from you must also undertake not to distribute binary versions to anybody else except yourself- , even if he/she did make any change/addition/modification to the code. Even if you make several changes/additions/modifications to the software, you may only distribute test versions to the same 10 persons maximum. unquote 5. Finally, the fact > that TT did choose (IIRC again, don't shoot if I am wrong) not to make > any money out of SMSQ/E any more but in that meeting you a
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 2:25, P Witte wrote: > (...) it appears we may have a > rebel camp that is hell-bound on doing what it pleases whatever anyone > else may think. Isnt that what its all about? I fear that it is, though, perhaps not even directly from D&D. As to the rest of Per's message, I couldn't agree more. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 23:20, dndsystems1 wrote: > Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a > year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed > to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this > contact or is this above the contact he means? Ahh, at last a reaction. Just for the record, this is a blatant lie. I have contacted YOU on "dndsystems1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in this matter. I have contatced DEREK on the email he GAVE me for correspondence on this matter. You have had a copy of this email for a week on this. If you want to deny this, that's fine by me. > Licence money has been paid. TO WHOM? WHEN? >I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to > me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. Hmm, that's NOT what Tony said to me. > > We have sold machines that do not have SMSQ/E - they boot into QDOS > Classic instead but then you already know that fact?? On ROM? > Etc. etc. etc. this is stupid. Has Wolfgang had a tap on the head > recently? (a great cure for water on the brain as it happens). Just address this matter, irony I can do without. > Do you, Wolfgang, still intend to send this mystery email to me? No. > If not why not? Oh, for various reasons. First of all, I don't send out 'mystery emails'. Second, Derek ACKNOWLEDGED to me that he had received my prior email which did contain a copy of the message I intend(ed) to send to this list. If you two aren't speaking to each other, that's NOT my concern. Both of you are acting for D&D. Third, it is up to you to request to become a reseller. If you don't,n you are at fault. Despite that, I DID TAKE the initiative to contact you. You know what your reaction was, i.e. none. > Wolfgang, more like WolfGANGSTER, menacingly demanding money without > an invoice. Watch out, this Wolfgangster bloke's a nutter :-))) . If you sell SMSQ/E without a licence you are breaking the law - not me as you are trying to make out. Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 17:28, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > Indeed we do, so here's my take on it. Good! > When your initial email came through, I though 'oh bloody hell, the > shit is really going to hit the fan now !'. Why ? Because in a public > forum you made quite serious accusations against other parties. Now, > whether or not your accusations are true, a public forum is not the > place to be making them. Actually I agree. And since this seems to be such an important point for many people here, I'll break one of my rules and tell you that I had sent copy of this email to D&D .. ONE WEEK AGO already. > I believe you can be held responsible for > what you write (say) in an email. (I think Demon got shafted some time > back simply because they allowed a usenet posting to remain on their > servers after being informed that it was incorrect etc.) I'l quite willing to be held repsonsible for the question I asked. > So, have you tried to communicate with D&D to find out if what you say > is true, or whether they have some other arrangments etc ? YES! > If you have > asked and not received any replies then there may well be a problem > and if so, it should be sorted out between the 'interested' parties > and not aired in public. If there does turn out to be a good reason, > they you may well end up with egg on your face. I believe you have put > yourself is a pretty awkward situation. Again, OK. > > > >> Heck, if you think D&D are right, say so, and also if you think > >> they are wrong. > > If D&D are not paying Tony then they must have a reason for not paying > Tony. This brings questions to mind, such as > > - do they have a separate agreemaent with Tony ? No, they don't. > - have they inherited some other agreement with Tony indirectly > through any previous dealing between the Grafs and Tony ? - are they > possibly saving up a whole pile of payments to Tony and submitting > them infrequently rather than EUR10 here and there ? - etc. The fact is, that all of this could and should have been discussed between them and me (or even them and TT previously. That hasn't been the case, not because I wasn't trying. > On the other hand, until all the facts are known, it is best not to > make judgement - especially in public. You know, what I actually would like best, would be to be proven wrong. I can live with then having egg all over my face. > Personally, I think you should have found out, or tried to find out > why no payments are/were being made and dealt with the matter through > private means. In the event of no success, turned the matter over to > Tony - it is his money after all, but putting the details on a public > forum was wrong. I did and I did and I still believe it wasn't. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 20:07, Bill Waugh wrote: (...) > There are not enough of us left that we should start an us and them > war. It's true that we are a small cmmunity. But surely that doesn't mean that people should be behaving in an improper manner.? Wolfgang
Re: QRe: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 19:28, Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote: (...) > Dennis makes a very interesting > point on which nobody but D&D and their customers know how many > Q60 were sold WITH SMSQ/E on ROM? Thats is indeed, a very good question, to which I would have liked to have an answer MUCH earlier. > observed in mailings that I exchanged with D&D in the past that some > got lost... NOT MINE to Derek, he acknowledge receipt of it. > That was way before any of this discussion (in the > timeframe that is inferred from the various emails) can it > therefore be COMPLETELY unreasonable to say that D&D never received > Wolfgang's mailings? Sorry, but yes. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 3:46, Dave P wrote: > And the question is "Is Wolfgang able to treat D&D fairly in light of > his sense that they are seemingly ignoring his perceived authority?" This something I cannot let by. There are always two sides to a authority - a moral and and a legal one. One has a "moral" authority when the situation is such that people want to abide by whatever decision is taken by you. I have no illusions in this respect - some people have gone clearly on record (e.g. Richard Zidlicky) to tell that they do not feel that I have such an authority. I can perfectly live with that. It also means that, in the eyes of these people I certainly don't have a "perceived" (nice turn of phrase, that) authority. The other is a legal authority, where a situation exists that you cannot do something (legally) without someone's authorization. Taking things out of a shop, for example - you may only do that if the shop owner agrees. It so happens that I am vested with that kind of authority, since TT delegated to me the power to receive requestes from resellers and see to it that official versions of SMSQ/E come from me. Now, as to the question of whether I am able to treat them fairly after they have seemingly ignored my "percevied" authority. The problem here is that they ignored the licence holder's legal rights. And they ignored my attempts to find you whether they are really ignoring this. Am I still able to treat them fairly? I hope so. I also must go on record to say that I think that I treated them fairly until now. What I can undertake (instead of expressing hopes) is that, if they ask to become a reseller, this will be examined in just the way as I described in many an earlier email. If they become a reseller, they WILL get official versions of SMSQ/E from me. Is that fair enough? > Which is what was expected to happen. The license, while I accept it > entirely, isn't one that can effectively discourage this. No licence can discourage people not to violate it. Look at M$ - they have about the most strict licences in the world, and still their software is pirated in the millions. What happened here, is that people were actually given a say in the matter, i.e. the drafting of the licence - and then, not satisfied at not having got what they wanted, they decided to boycott everything. This, at least is the way I perceive things. > The problem is that Wolfgang expects the D&D sales to result in a > payment to him of 10 Euros per copy sold, No, not to me, but to TT - I just pass the money over. > but he doesn't know how many > licenses they already have unsold, so there is no simple resolution > without facts. "unsold" :-))) as to the rest: yes, this is entirely true - BUT the presumption is that D&D have sold Q60s with SMSQ/E - after all, this is the way the machine has always been sold. If only they had simply told me - "we have not sold one single machine with SMSQ/E". > I do think it is vital to have someone keep the different versions of > SMSQ/E in step, and I think Wolfgang is technically capable. Thanks fo the "technically" > My worry > is that this action has polarised and marginalised D&D into a position > where they will feel unwilling to co-operate with him. Excuse me, but what cooperation? D&D and I don't HAVE TO cooperate (even though, still, I'd like to - let me go on record for this!). If D&D sell SMSQ/E as an official reseller, they will get the official versions from me. That's all the cooperation we HAVE to have and that's a cooperation I can guarantee from my side. Of course, I would prefer them telling me what more they expect of SMSQ/E, where they would like to make changes etc... If that doesn't happen, it's NOT because I'm not listening. > Now, words will fly, and indignation will be expressed since we're > talking about a world market for maybe 100 copies of SMSQ/E over the > coming years, it's not going to be sued over, and the enforcer has no > teeth. That also depends on the buyers of SMSQ/E. I for one, would not have bought a Q60 under these circumstances. If you do, knowing that you are using a pirated copy of an OS and that the people gining it to you had not right to do so, then that's your decision. > So it's academic. THAT we'll see. > What's the way forward from here? Good question. Other than suing them, I don't have a ready-made answer. Wolfgang
