In a message dated 19/03/2004 11:17:31 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Huhu,
dada. Kindergarten level reached at last, and Roy pulls out the
intellectual waterpistol :-) Since the easiest way to escape that game
level is the 'unsubscribe' command, I'll just use it hereafter.I'm
well aware that I'm only a small candle in software development, not
comparable to the real free software heros like Mark Swift, Jonathan
Hudson, Richard Zidlicky and others. Nevertheless I think my offer was
necessary, although the chances it would be accepted were small from the
start.Those who think I still had free software ambitions left in
Post-Tony-Tebby SMSQ/E (and would therefore 'give a present') are as wrong
as can be. As far as I'm personally concerned Wolfgang can keep his
license forever - I simply don't care anymore.One last remark.
I've often been misinterpreted in a way that I'd want _everything_ to
become free software. This is not so, although I'd probably never want any
money for a piece of QL software that I write
myself.
Having read between the lines in all this, the status of SMSQ/e and
just how "free" it is, appears to be more a battle of wills between the parties
concerned. I do not see that this situation will ever be resolved,
especially now that various changes/additions to SMSQ/e have already been
submitted and incorporated in the code. I wonder if all the people who
contributed those changes would now agree to SMSQ/e and their code being made
freely distributable under GPL, or would we have to go back several versions so
that only Tony Tebby would have to agree to this (if indeed he now changed his
mind to allow it)??
The whole situation is a mess and it is only the users who are losing
out.
If Peter is unwilling to allow the majority of QL users have access to his
code, then so be it - we will just have to accept that situation and move
on. Most people seem perfectly happy with SMSQ/e and how it is now and the
way in which changes are managed and released. Most people are ignorant of
why Peter and others want SMSQ/e to be under GPL and also what changes
this would actually bring. To tell the truth, I would bet most people
simply do not care, so long as SMSQ/e continues to be developed and released for
the good of the QL community.
Enough of the bickering.
If a programmer wants to release his hard work for only a small percentage
of the QL community, then so be it. It's just a shame that very few people
will ever see the benefits of his work.
Peter, if you no longer want to subscribe to this list, then this will only
push you further from the QL community and even fewer people will know what
great feats you achieve. However, it is your choice.
Maybe once the software is released, you will advertise it in Quanta and QL
Today so that people will be aware of it, what it does and what is can be used
on. However, I doubt many people will use it (alas) as there are so few
who use QDOS Classic as their operating system of choice.
I wonder why people do not chose QDOS Classic as their main operating
system. Could it be:
1) It has not been improved for some years (so far as I know, since it was
ported to the Q40)
2) It has no pointer environment, which many people are used to, and which
is used by a vast majority of current programs (IS THIS STILL TRUE)??
3) It is difficult to get running and cannot access the same files on the
hard disk as SMSQ/e (if you have a dual boot system).
4) It still contains bugs left over from QDOS, and lacks many of the
facilities of SMSQ/e (multitasking BASICs, faster interpreter, SERMouse
drivers)
I stand to be corrected on these comments on QDOS Classic and I am sure
that George Gwilt would love a simple step by step guide as to how to set it up,
so that we can find out why QWord cannot open its TurboPTR windows under
it.
--Rich
Mellor RWAP Services35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West
Yorkshire, WF9 5JHTEL: 01977 610509Visit our website at
URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.ukStuck with ordinary dial up
internet connection ?? Read our review of internet accelerators and
broadband at:URL:
http://www.rwapadventures.com/Services/reviews.html
