RE: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
And, I believe that this was the sort oif thing that Dave (Dexter) was after in a recent post. Set up SMSQ so that the bootstrapping process looked for and offered various OS versions to be loaded. I'll second that. Regards, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: P Witte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 11:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE >> (A useful purpose for a ROM bootloader might be to search for available >> OSes on the hard disk and offer a simple menu for selecting which one to >> boot.) Per 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] This is the LICENCE
Richard Zidlicky writes: > > >it will break when harddisks are accessed in LBA instead of CHS mode. > > That is interesting. I thought Tony Tebby had always intended that the > > SMSQ code could be LRESPRed. > > you can allways lrespr it from floppy. Keeping HD full backwards compatible > with current versions of SMSQ would be probably a lot more work, as far > as I could judge this is one of the rather messy aspects of SMSQ. > I think most people would like to convert to LBA because that allows > - disks > 8GB (once a few other bugs are ironed out) > - safe HD image exchange with QXL/QPC Changing from CHS to LBA is an extreme example and that sort of issue is only likely to crop up once in a blue moon. > > I suspect the majority of users are now running with LRESPRed SMSQ. > > >Besides, what is the point to require the user to go through additional > > >hoops like this? The speed argument mentioned later in this discussion > > >is tripple nonsense and the authors of it should know better. > > You need to explain the 'triple' nonsense. > > - the code is in fast ROM and can be copied from there to RAM much > faster than from a HD to RAM, iirc SMSQ already does this. > - lrespr SMSQ involves a repeated HW initialisation, count another > few seconds on that > - it is much easier to screw up your HD than your ROM 1) The difference is maybe a second or two on a Q60 2) The bootloader could perhaps be upgraded to do this more intelligently 3) That will always be the case. At least, with a spare copy of the OS on a floppy youre not irretrievably sunk. In a situation where the OS is frequently being updated/upgraded (as we hope will be the case in the near future ;) it doesnt make sense to have the OS in ROM at all. The ROM need only contain a bootstrap. That way SMSQ would only ever need to be initialised once - namely from the most recent version on the hard disk. (A useful purpose for a ROM bootloader might be to search for available OSes on the hard disk and offer a simple menu for selecting which one to boot.) Per
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 11:41:44PM +0100, Tony Firshman wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 at 11:52:28, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > > > > >On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:03:03AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: > >> > >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard > >> Zidlicky<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> > >> >Absolutely not. If you are building hardware you can't simply provide > >> >the user with an official SMSQ version in EPROM and a patch on a floppy > >> >disk and expect him to apply the patch to the EPROM. > >> No need. All versions of SMSQ/E for the Qxx (which is what we are > >> talking about here - possibly the GoldFire later but that will have > >> flash ROM) are LRESPR'able over the source code on the ROM. That is what > >> I do because I have an early version of the ROM. > > > >it will break when harddisks are accessed in LBA instead of CHS mode. > That is interesting. I thought Tony Tebby had always intended that the > SMSQ code could be LRESPRed. you can allways lrespr it from floppy. Keeping HD full backwards compatible with current versions of SMSQ would be probably a lot more work, as far as I could judge this is one of the rather messy aspects of SMSQ. I think most people would like to convert to LBA because that allows - disks > 8GB (once a few other bugs are ironed out) - safe HD image exchange with QXL/QPC > I suspect the majority of users are now running with LRESPRed SMSQ. > >Besides, what is the point to require the user to go through additional > >hoops like this? The speed argument mentioned later in this discussion > >is tripple nonsense and the authors of it should know better. > You need to explain the 'triple' nonsense. - the code is in fast ROM and can be copied from there to RAM much faster than from a HD to RAM, iirc SMSQ already does this. - lrespr SMSQ involves a repeated HW initialisation, count another few seconds on that - it is much easier to screw up your HD than your ROM Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Tony Firshman wrote: > I am not talking about boot speed but running speed - that is certainly > worth the extra boot time. The first thing all versions of SMSQ/E do is copying themselves to some RAM location anyway. I.e. there is no waste of memory when loading SMSQ/E from disc. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 at 09:21:32, Bill Waugh wrote: (ref: <003201c21a8f$027d3240$eaf47ad5@famwaugh>) > > >- Original Message - Now not (8-)# >From: "Tony Firshman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 11:41 PM >Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE >Lets forget the speed thing, the litle extra time to Lrespr the code from hd >is nowt compared to the boot up time of my PC. I am not talking about boot speed but running speed - that is certainly worth the extra boot time. Mind you this is more relevant to earlier systems I think, although LREPRed O/S is still faster on today's systems - marginally (I believe). -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
- Original Message - From: "Tony Firshman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 11:41 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE > > On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 at 11:52:28, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > > > > >On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:03:03AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: > >> > >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard > >> Zidlicky<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes Snip > >it will break when harddisks are accessed in LBA instead of CHS mode. > That is interesting. I thought Tony Tebby had always intended that the > SMSQ code could be LRESPRed. > I suspect the majority of users are now running with LRESPRed SMSQ. Yep > >Besides, what is the point to require the user to go through additional > >hoops like this? The speed argument mentioned later in this discussion > >is tripple nonsense and the authors of it should know better. > You need to explain the 'triple' nonsense. Lets forget the speed thing, the litle extra time to Lrespr the code from hd is nowt compared to the boot up time of my PC. All the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 at 11:52:28, Richard Zidlicky wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > >On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:03:03AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: >> >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard >> Zidlicky<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> >> >Absolutely not. If you are building hardware you can't simply provide >> >the user with an official SMSQ version in EPROM and a patch on a floppy >> >disk and expect him to apply the patch to the EPROM. >> No need. All versions of SMSQ/E for the Qxx (which is what we are >> talking about here - possibly the GoldFire later but that will have >> flash ROM) are LRESPR'able over the source code on the ROM. That is what >> I do because I have an early version of the ROM. > >it will break when harddisks are accessed in LBA instead of CHS mode. That is interesting. I thought Tony Tebby had always intended that the SMSQ code could be LRESPRed. I suspect the majority of users are now running with LRESPRed SMSQ. >Besides, what is the point to require the user to go through additional >hoops like this? The speed argument mentioned later in this discussion >is tripple nonsense and the authors of it should know better. You need to explain the 'triple' nonsense. > Surely >the version control which was intended as the main benefit of this >license doesn't benefit from an approach like this where user is >supposed to patch his own software. It is not a patch - it is the identical code to the ROM version. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 02:49:24PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote: > > Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > So if Marcel doesn't want to use this commercial clause > > Oh, where did you read this? in your answer. Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:03:03AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard > Zidlicky<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > > >Absolutely not. If you are building hardware you can't simply provide > >the user with an official SMSQ version in EPROM and a patch on a floppy > >disk and expect him to apply the patch to the EPROM. > No need. All versions of SMSQ/E for the Qxx (which is what we are > talking about here - possibly the GoldFire later but that will have > flash ROM) are LRESPR'able over the source code on the ROM. That is what > I do because I have an early version of the ROM. it will break when harddisks are accessed in LBA instead of CHS mode. Besides, what is the point to require the user to go through additional hoops like this? The speed argument mentioned later in this discussion is tripple nonsense and the authors of it should know better. Surely the version control which was intended as the main benefit of this license doesn't benefit from an approach like this where user is supposed to patch his own software. In any case this discussion is pretty academic, I do not intend to do extra work like providing patches just to please a broken license. BTW how is it possible that newest QPC has some nonstandard SMSQ extensions? Have these already been included in the official SMSQ version? Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Mike MacNamara writes: > I almost agree Tony, I think RomDisq is great, BUT, I can > remember phoning you to find out if I could recover my files > after I had tried many times without success, but then succeeded, > in crashing the Romdisq.. After reloading its 'works', it of > course was blank, and again no keyboard to rectify things with. > The simple answer is of course to have a backup on an ED or > several HD disks, not on a HDD because you can't get back into > that having lost the boot and OS and keyboard driver. I think > I'll go along with the albeit slightly slower Eprom solution, but > much safer, and far less stress The answer here is the one youd use with any OS: An Emergency Boot Disk (floppy or CD). Stick a big red lable on it and put it in your EBD box. No fumbling in the dark anymore.. Per
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
- Original Message - From: "Tony Firshman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 6:04 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 at 12:38:59, Mike MacNamara wrote: > (ref: <00ab01c2184f$12b9e190$c272893e@macnamarxmjd3y>) > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >www.macnamaras.com > >- Original Message - > >From: "Jochen Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:39 AM > >Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE > > > >Thanks Jochen, if you load 'new' code into ram rather than 'old' > >code then lrespr an 'updated' code over it, surely that takes > >longer? One of my biggest problems with QLs, as they used > >Superhermes, was Lrespr'ing the Superhermes code in before a > >keyboard would work. Any problems with disks or programs( > >corrupted/deleted boots) caused a lock out. What a hassle to > >make a boot disk(if I could find a S/Hermes disk) to try and get > >back in, > The perfect solution to this is to put the sH code in as a 'romn' file > on RomDisq - and it is then loaded before the BOOT program. > > that is until SMSQ/E came with the Superhermes code > >already installed (thanks Roy), If I 'lost' the OS in the same > >way it would be a real drag. Surely better with 'new' code on > >eprom, where it is reasonably safe? > but slower. > I would go for speed any time. The time and ram involved is small. I almost agree Tony, I think RomDisq is great, BUT, I can remember phoning you to find out if I could recover my files after I had tried many times without success, but then succeeded, in crashing the Romdisq.. After reloading its 'works', it of course was blank, and again no keyboard to rectify things with. The simple answer is of course to have a backup on an ED or several HD disks, not on a HDD because you can't get back into that having lost the boot and OS and keyboard driver. I think I'll go along with the albeit slightly slower Eprom solution, but much safer, and far less stress regards Mike. > > -- > Tony Firshman > >
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Jochen wrote: >Loading the OS from (slow access) EPROM to (fast access) RAM >is of benefit. Yep, and it takes just a memory copy from ROM to RAM, which the OS can apply to itself at startup. BTW the Q60 with its 32 bit wide ROM bus isn't much slower than RAM. >SMSQ/E is so small, that the speed you gain >will outweight the memory loss easily. That was done on other >systems to gain speed. The "old" code is erased anyway, so does >not take up any additional RAM. Problem is boot speed if upgrade is on (hard)disk instead of ROM. If you load the new OS from disk, using an older version of the OS, you always need to boot the whole OS twice. This would happen on Qxx if upgrades come only on (hard)disk. On the other hand, SMSQ/E could be (almost) as fast as a simple loader. AFAIK it just wastes time with ineffient hardware initialization. Peter
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Tony Firshman wrote: > I would go for speed any time. The time and ram involved is small. This raises an interesting question, and I'd like to just play this out so people can see why I think it is interesting. The QL and etc had the OS in ROM, and it was unlikely to be superceded. It was loaded directly, and executed in situ. The upgrade/expansions would copy the OS from (EP)ROM into RAM, then execute it there. I believe the Q60 is like this too. The Goldfire will have the OS in flash, and while using the same system, at least if the OS is updated, the image that is loaded can be the current one in all cases, and not 'load the default OS, then run a boot file and load the current OS' I therefore propose that an early objective of the SMSQ open development team should be to create a bootloader version of SMSQ that only includes the code necessary to access the desired storage device, and copy the OS image into RAM, so a whole copy of SMSQ need not be committed to ROM or flash. Obviously, this should have some degree of configurability, so the actual OS image could be copied from a floppy/HD or flash, as applicable. If it contained some code that would allow selection from multiple OS images (eg: hold down F5 and it pops up a list of available OS versions for you to select from) that might be very powerful and helpful too, and also give some safety element in the event of a failed OS upgrade. What do you think? How could the idea of loading an OS be made consistent across platforms, and is the benefit sufficiently worth it? Dave
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 at 11:29:11, Mike MacNamara wrote: (ref: <009901c21845$52631370$c272893e@macnamarxmjd3y>) > >- >From: "Roy Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 12:03 AM >Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE > > >> >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard >> Zidlicky<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >writes >> >> >Absolutely not. If you are building hardware you can't simply >provide >> >the user with an official SMSQ version in EPROM and a patch on >a floppy >> >disk and expect him to apply the patch to the EPROM. >> No need. All versions of SMSQ/E for the Qxx (which is what we >are >> talking about here - possibly the GoldFire later but that will >have >> flash ROM) are LRESPR'able over the source code on the ROM. >That is what >> I do because I have an early version of the ROM. >Whets the point in having an EPROM if you have to LRESPR on >patches and extensions, apart from the waste of memory and >loading time, altering boots, etc. Who wants old code lying about >when they can have good clean updates instead, not me for sure. It is not a patch but the whole operating system. It is the way I do it, as the OS runs faster from RAM. -- Tony Firshman
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 at 12:38:59, Mike MacNamara wrote: (ref: <00ab01c2184f$12b9e190$c272893e@macnamarxmjd3y>) > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >www.macnamaras.com >- Original Message - >From: "Jochen Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:39 AM >Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE > > >> >> >> > Whets the point in having an EPROM if you have to LRESPR on >> > patches and extensions, apart from the waste of memory and >> > loading time, altering boots, etc. Who wants old code lying >about >> > when they can have good clean updates instead, not me for >sure. >> >> Loading the OS from (slow access) EPROM to (fast access) RAM >> is of benefit. SMSQ/E is so small, that the speed you gain >> will outweigh the memory loss easily. That was done on other >> systems to gain speed. The "old" code is erased anyway, so does >> not take up any additional RAM. > >Thanks Jochen, if you load 'new' code into ram rather than 'old' >code then lrespr an 'updated' code over it, surely that takes >longer? One of my biggest problems with QLs, as they used >Superhermes, was Lrespr'ing the Superhermes code in before a >keyboard would work. Any problems with disks or programs( >corrupted/deleted boots) caused a lock out. What a hassle to >make a boot disk(if I could find a S/Hermes disk) to try and get >back in, The perfect solution to this is to put the sH code in as a 'romn' file on RomDisq - and it is then loaded before the BOOT program. > that is until SMSQ/E came with the Superhermes code >already installed (thanks Roy), If I 'lost' the OS in the same >way it would be a real drag. Surely better with 'new' code on >eprom, where it is reasonably safe? but slower. I would go for speed any time. The time and ram involved is small. -- Tony Firshman
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Richard Zidlicky wrote: >> so I assume Roy was also correct when he claimed that it was agreed >> not to take any additional roylaties for SMSQ beyound the 10 Euro >> for TT. > still missing the answer to this question. For the SMSQ as it is available now this is true, yes. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 10:34:02AM +0200, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:26:20PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote: > > > > Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > >> You can have free 'Open Source' code and Richard et al will write for it > > >> and Marcel and a few others will quit > > > > > > Did you ask Marcel? > > > > He knows my opinion quite well, yes. And what he wrote is true. > > so I assume Roy was also correct when he claimed that it was agreed > not to take any additional roylaties for SMSQ beyound the 10 Euro > for TT. > still missing the answer to this question. > Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 12:19:47AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Zidlicky > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> The problem here is that it does fragment the community - I see nothing in > >> the current licence which prevents giving the binaries away for nothing, > >> provided that the 10 Euro fee is still paid to TT for each new copy sold (or > >> given away), so long as you register as an authorised reseller. > > > >the problem is the license says otherwise, read it. It is 10 Euro now, it > >may be 50 Euro next year, nobody knows. Or perhaps someone does know but > >doesn't say. > Whatever makes anyone think that the licence fee might change ? Read the license, if you need legal expertise ask Wolfgang. > >With this license Peter isn't sure he could provide even minor fixes for > >Q40/Q60 related issues free of cost to the user (actually afaics he is > >convinced to the opposite). If Wolfgang accepts some royalty financed > >extension to SMSQ in the meantime the user does have to buy a new license > >and pay the extra royalties just to get the free fixes - the requirement > >of a single official SMSQ version causes this. > The fee is a one off. IF you buy a copy of SMSQ/E or own a copy already > then any upgrade is free provided the author of the upgrade is not > asking for a fee. I have always only charged for postage when upgrading > SMSQ/E within the version number. I have also done it for free at shows. > Maybe the licence should specifically state this to avoid the spread of > paranoia. I have said this so many times now that my fingers can type it > in my sleep. I would very hapilly agree with you, unfortunately the license says something completely different. > >I consider getting free bugfixes say at the basis of current functionality > >pretty essential. The people *have* paid the license so all bugfixes must > >be free unless they require complete rewrite of the code. And availablity > >of bugfixes *must* be independent of the purchase of some new fancy > >extension that will almost certainly introduce a whole load of new bugs. > This is the reason for the licence. There may be someone who wants to > write an extension and get paid for it. We hope that most of these will > be modules which can be added onto the code by the user (fairly simple > to do) so we really hope to try to keep all upgrades free. I would hope this too but that is not quite enough. I am pretty good at reading licenses, not someone else' mind so all I can see is this license. If you want the license to say something else than it says now, change it to say what you mean. Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 07:43:36AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Can you and Peter please highlight the clause in the licence which prevents > copies of SMSQ.E binaries being given away or updates given at nil cost (I > seem to have lost my copy of the licence ahhh!). So far as I read it, so > long as the royalty to TT (or other commercial author) is paid, there seems > no restriction on the price actually charged for an SMSQ/E binary. you read it correctly, however there are 2 problems. - the license fee may change anytime and Wolfgang can then prohibit free upgrades, the license explicitly says this. - nobody (not even official resellers) is allowed to sell or otherwise distribute modified (say bugfixed ) versions of the binary I will email you the license by pm. > I agree that if someone adds a commercial element to the main core, the user > will have to pay to get the latest version, but it is unlikely to happen in > reality and if it does, the user has the option not to upgrade. does he? Well if there were important bugfixes in the meantime even if they are completely unrelated to the commercial element there is no way anyone (except Wolfgang) could provide just the bugfixes, without the need to upgrade to the new commercial code. > In any > event, market forces dictate that it is unlikely that anyone will pay for a > change to the core which no-one actually wants, so why would the Q40/Q60 > users object to paying for the extra functionality?? Unfortunately the users have absolutely no choice whether they pay the extra functionality so market forces are ruled out. Wolfgang decides what goes into the official SMSQ version and your only choice is either buy the official binary or stick with some old version and old bugs. > > I would not mind if someone wants to sell "enhanced" binaries and > > claim extra money. Shouldn't the user have the choice whether he > > takes the free binary or something fancy? > > > > <> > > I agree that a user should have the choice whether to take updates to the > free binary or not.. However, it is not practical to keep several versions > of the code running concurrently and expect programmers to maintain all those > versions. we are not speaking about different versions, merely different configurations. For technical reasons (mainly testing) it should be obligatory that for every new feature added it should be possible to exclude it from the built binary. Once you have this ability than it is no extra effort. > The last thing we want (and hence the reason for keeping one main > core version of SMSQ/E) is for the resellers/programmers to be asked to fix a > bug in a free version of SMSQ/E for the Q40 which they have already fixed in > a commercial version which could need a lot more work to do, particularly if > they have relied on something added by the commercial version (whether it is > their own or not) this is extremely unlikely considering the bugs I have in my mind. > And according to your view of the licence, you would > want them to do this bug fix for free!! it was not my view of the license, the license doesn't say anything like this. My view is that if someone does the bugfix for free than the bugfix should be available - for free. Not bundled with some extra commercial software the user may or may not need. > This could end up with the old adage of re-inventing the wheel, as a > non-commercial programmer is asked to fix something in the free version which > has already been fixed (months, maybe years ago) in the commercial version... no, people would simply buy the commercial version if it has something they want. > > Frankly I consider all the arguments for a single official SMSQ > > completely bogus. > > > > There is also some philosophical and practical problems with royalties > > in the SMSQ license. > > If someone develops an ISO 9660 reader should users without CD reader > > pay the royalties for this? What happens if the author doesn't maintain > > his code for say 2 years or it becomes obsoleted by something else? > > Should other developpers maintain the code while the author still receives > > royalties? What happens if something is implemented in such a way that > > it turns out a year later it prevents or heavilly obstructs some other > > development? I have practice in operating systems development so I know > > this happens very often unfortunately. Having royalty payments will > > often lead to the situation where other developpers say let the guy > > who gets the royalties fix his code. > > <> > > Yes, I agree - that is why I have suggested to Wolfgang that the licence > include a clause stating that any additions to the core binaries (commercial > or not) must be supplied with a copy of the source code to the registrar, > stating whether the source is to be distributed as part of the source code > distribution. afaics this is exactly what the license says, or r
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
In a message dated 17/06/02 23:35:39 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << cut >> > The problem here is that it does fragment the community - I see nothing in > the current licence which prevents giving the binaries away for nothing, > provided that the 10 Euro fee is still paid to TT for each new copy sold (or > given away), so long as you register as an authorised reseller. the problem is the license says otherwise, read it. It is 10 Euro now, it may be 50 Euro next year, nobody knows. Or perhaps someone does know but doesn't say. With this license Peter isn't sure he could provide even minor fixes for Q40/Q60 related issues free of cost to the user (actually afaics he is convinced to the opposite). If Wolfgang accepts some royalty financed extension to SMSQ in the meantime the user does have to buy a new license and pay the extra royalties just to get the free fixes - the requirement of a single official SMSQ version causes this. I consider getting free bugfixes say at the basis of current functionality pretty essential. The people *have* paid the license so all bugfixes must be free unless they require complete rewrite of the code. And availablity of bugfixes *must* be independent of the purchase of some new fancy extension that will almost certainly introduce a whole load of new bugs. Basically I am trying to make sure we have the right to decline the M$ way of doing business. Not that I would accuse anybody of planning it but I know from own experience how often new versions of software introduce new problems which nobody desired. Can you and Peter please highlight the clause in the licence which prevents copies of SMSQ.E binaries being given away or updates given at nil cost (I seem to have lost my copy of the licence ahhh!). So far as I read it, so long as the royalty to TT (or other commercial author) is paid, there seems no restriction on the price actually charged for an SMSQ/E binary. I agree that if someone adds a commercial element to the main core, the user will have to pay to get the latest version, but it is unlikely to happen in reality and if it does, the user has the option not to upgrade. In any event, market forces dictate that it is unlikely that anyone will pay for a change to the core which no-one actually wants, so why would the Q40/Q60 users object to paying for the extra functionality?? Free upgrades appear to be covered under the licence - but this is where I am lost without my copy of the licence!! > you should be wary of having a specific clause to say that all Qx0 binaries > can be distributed freely because this may put off anyone who does want to do > some commercial coding for the Qx0. I would not mind if someone wants to sell "enhanced" binaries and claim extra money. Shouldn't the user have the choice whether he takes the free binary or something fancy? <> I agree that a user should have the choice whether to take updates to the free binary or not.. However, it is not practical to keep several versions of the code running concurrently and expect programmers to maintain all those versions. The last thing we want (and hence the reason for keeping one main core version of SMSQ/E) is for the resellers/programmers to be asked to fix a bug in a free version of SMSQ/E for the Q40 which they have already fixed in a commercial version which could need a lot more work to do, particularly if they have relied on something added by the commercial version (whether it is their own or not) And according to your view of the licence, you would want them to do this bug fix for free!! This could end up with the old adage of re-inventing the wheel, as a non-commercial programmer is asked to fix something in the free version which has already been fixed (months, maybe years ago) in the commercial version... Frankly I consider all the arguments for a single official SMSQ completely bogus. There is also some philosophical and practical problems with royalties in the SMSQ license. If someone develops an ISO 9660 reader should users without CD reader pay the royalties for this? What happens if the author doesn't maintain his code for say 2 years or it becomes obsoleted by something else? Should other developpers maintain the code while the author still receives royalties? What happens if something is implemented in such a way that it turns out a year later it prevents or heavilly obstructs some other development? I have practice in operating systems development so I know this happens very often unfortunately. Having royalty payments will often lead to the situation where other developpers say let the guy who gets the royalties fix his code. <> Yes, I agree - that is why I have suggested to Wolfgang that the licence include a clause stating that any additions to the core binaries (commercial or not) must be supplied with a copy of the source code to the registrar, stating whether the source is to be distributed as part of the source code
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
In a message dated 15/06/02 12:39:54 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Rich, a specific proposal has already been put forward to Wolfgang many weeks ago. It was a small exception for Qx0 in the license, which was to allow free public distribution of the official Qx0 binaries, while I personally contribute the fee for Tony Tebby. For ease of use, I wanted a one-time payment, but I also offered to pay for additional boards, should the number of boards be higher than expected. The reason behind this idea was to make sure that every author who writes code for Qx0, can be sure his executable will be *available*, regardless of my person. This would give the non-commercial authors a feeling of savety that their code won't be lost. This will surely not motivate folks like Richard for major work, but maybe he would contribute a minor fix now and then. I don't know. Do you think it could help to re-phrase this to suit the latest draft and mail it again? Or would this only lead to further accusation and escalation? The problem here is that it does fragment the community - I see nothing in the current licence which prevents giving the binaries away for nothing, provided that the 10 Euro fee is still paid to TT for each new copy sold (or given away), so long as you register as an authorised reseller. Maybe you could highlight the particular clause which prevents this. I think you should be wary of having a specific clause to say that all Qx0 binaries can be distributed freely because this may put off anyone who does want to do some commercial coding for the Qx0. We don't have to worry about people passing the binaries around, as anyone who has a Qx0 will have SMSQ/E already. As for future support, since the resellers all currently offer free upgrades, it is unlikely that you need to worry about what happens in the future should you not be around.. Let me know the exact clauses in the licence which are stopping you from doing what you want and this gives a point to move forward from. Rich Mellor RWAP Software 7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR TEL: 01977 614299 http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
At 03:43 15.06.02 -0400, you wrote: >OK, time to put in my teo-penneth worth. > >This discussion/arguing needs to be brought to a swift end - it is in >danger of not only fragmenting the whole QL scene even further, but >putting people off the QL, SMSQ/E and this email list at a time when we >all need to band together. > >We do not need to start again with a different licence (GPL or otherwise) >as this will just provoke further discussion from those who are not >willing to work under that licence as it stands. > >What we need is the Grafs (after discussion with Richard) to list which >clauses in the licence they feel prevent further development for the >Q40/Q60 operating system (I currently cannot see where the problems lie) >and propose replacement clauses which they would find acceptable and which >should not prevent commercial development of SMSQ/E also. Not everyone is >willing to carry out work for nothing but on the other hand, not everyone >would demand payment for their work. > >Until some specfic proposals for changes to the licence are put forward by >the Grafs their comments are just going to be seen as mindless bickering. Hi Rich, a specific proposal has already been put forward to Wolfgang many weeks ago. It was a small exception for Qx0 in the license, which was to allow free public distribution of the official Qx0 binaries, while I personally contribute the fee for Tony Tebby. For ease of use, I wanted a one-time payment, but I also offered to pay for additional boards, should the number of boards be higher than expected. The reason behind this idea was to make sure that every author who writes code for Qx0, can be sure his executable will be *available*, regardless of my person. This would give the non-commercial authors a feeling of savety that their code won't be lost. This will surely not motivate folks like Richard for major work, but maybe he would contribute a minor fix now and then. I don't know. Do you think it could help to re-phrase this to suit the latest draft and mail it again? Or would this only lead to further accusation and escalation? All the best Peter >I think Wolfgang should give a cut off point of say 7 days for proposals >to be put forward, after which, if nothing is received, the licence should >be adopted as it stands. > >Rich Mellor >RWAP Software >7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR >TEL: 01977 614299 >http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 at 03:43:00, wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) >OK, time to put in my teo-penneth worth. > >This discussion/arguing needs to be brought to a swift end - it is in >danger of not only fragmenting the whole QL scene even further, but >putting people off the QL, SMSQ/E and this email list at a time when we >all need to band together. > >We do not need to start again with a different licence (GPL or >otherwise) as this will just provoke further discussion from those who >are not willing to work under that licence as it stands. > >What we need is the Grafs (after discussion with Richard) to list which >clauses in the licence they feel prevent further development for the >Q40/Q60 operating system (I currently cannot see where the problems >lie) and propose replacement clauses which they would find acceptable >and which should not prevent commercial development of SMSQ/E also. >Not everyone is willing to carry out work for nothing but on the other >hand, not everyone would demand payment for their work. >Until some specfic proposals for changes to the licence are put forward >by the Grafs their comments are just going to be seen as mindless >bickering. Already are (8-(# My system was down for a day and I had 78 to read in this thread. I must say there is so much irrelevant mud slinging that I have totally lost track of what the _real_ problems are. As someone said, the license is not set in stone. I think though Wolfgang has called a halt to the initial discussions, and has now released the license. You see there is so much obfuscation that I am not sure (get dictionaries out Peter/Jochen/Wolfgang (8-)# ) -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
OK, time to put in my teo-penneth worth. This discussion/arguing needs to be brought to a swift end - it is in danger of not only fragmenting the whole QL scene even further, but putting people off the QL, SMSQ/E and this email list at a time when we all need to band together. We do not need to start again with a different licence (GPL or otherwise) as this will just provoke further discussion from those who are not willing to work under that licence as it stands. What we need is the Grafs (after discussion with Richard) to list which clauses in the licence they feel prevent further development for the Q40/Q60 operating system (I currently cannot see where the problems lie) and propose replacement clauses which they would find acceptable and which should not prevent commercial development of SMSQ/E also. Not everyone is willing to carry out work for nothing but on the other hand, not everyone would demand payment for their work. Until some specfic proposals for changes to the licence are put forward by the Grafs their comments are just going to be seen as mindless bickering. I think Wolfgang should give a cut off point of say 7 days for proposals to be put forward, after which, if nothing is received, the licence should be adopted as it stands. Rich Mellor RWAP Software 7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR TEL: 01977 614299 http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:26:20PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote: > > Richard Zidlicky wrote: > >> You can have free 'Open Source' code and Richard et al will write for it > >> and Marcel and a few others will quit > > > > Did you ask Marcel? > > He knows my opinion quite well, yes. And what he wrote is true. so I assume Roy was also correct when he claimed that it was agreed not to take any additional roylaties for SMSQ beyound the 10 Euro for TT. Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On 14 Jun 2002, at 2:34, P Witte wrote: > > Can this appalling "discussion" now come to an end, please? > I am not > prepared to evaluate any argument, however "just", that is couched in > such grotesque terms as we have witnessed in recent days and weeks. > There is absolutely no value in such dialogue, and no one should allow > themselves be goaded into participating at this level. To be quite frank, I have a little problem there. I have already been accused of 1 - not answering the arguments brought forth 2 - conspiracy. They only way I see to disprove that, is to attempt to reply to the emails on this list. I've already changed my strategy and am no longer replying to each and every email but try to group my replies. I'm quite aware that by replying I keep fuelling the debate. But if I don't, it'll only be worse, because people will think that I am ignoring them. >It should be > ignored where it cannot be stopped as it can only lead to mischief. Im > all for honest and robust debate, but this is not it. Agreed. > Like it or not, Wolfgang has the authority to proceed, and in my > opinion he ought to do so forthwith. I have done so. Come & get it! > Hopefully the odours will soon dissipate. I'll keep my gas mask handy... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On 13 Jun 2002, at 18:32, Peter Graf wrote: > > Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > > > > However strange it may seem to you, TT himself would allow Open > > > Source. > > > >No. > > Don't try to spread this legend, you're in opposition to your own > mails. No, I'm not. Perhaps we should define "open source"? In my eyes, with the licence as it is now, this IS open source. TT agrees with the licence as it is now (of course, else it wouldn't be like that). He does NOT agree with your proposal as far as I am aware. (rest cut) Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On 13 Jun 2002, at 23:20, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > This is incorrect. The current license states that once contributed, > > code cannot be withdrawn, and that the contributor has surrendered > > their copyright claim to TT. Therefore, only TT needs to consent to > > a license change. > > Wrong. You do not withdraw the code, you simply do not give > permission to use or distribute under a different license. > > If Wolfgang thinks that the submitter should in advance give > permission to every thinkable change of the licence than he > must definitely write it explicitly into the licence or > require special formalities when accepting code. > > The license as is clearly does not say this.. maybe simply > a problem with formulation but I would consider this a *very* > *big* problem. > OK, so to make this point moot also, I could include a passage to that effect in the licence. This will, however probably lead to more outcries since I would be forcing the authors, if any, to agree in advance on a licence that they know nothing about. Not a good idea. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Can this appalling "discussion" now come to an end, please? I am not prepared to evaluate any argument, however "just", that is couched in such grotesque terms as we have witnessed in recent days and weeks. There is absolutely no value in such dialogue, and no one should allow themselves be goaded into participating at this level. It should be ignored where it cannot be stopped as it can only lead to mischief. Im all for honest and robust debate, but this is not it. Like it or not, Wolfgang has the authority to proceed, and in my opinion he ought to do so forthwith. Hopefully the odours will soon dissipate. Per
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
James Hunkins writes: <> > Just my humble opinion. Hope it helps. Amen, Per
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 02:17:11PM +, Dave P wrote: > > > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:56:31AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: > > > > > No licence is set in stone (as Steve Hall remarked to me on the day > > > before I left for the US show) and you can always change it later if it > > > proves not to work. > > > > you can't. Once other people contributed you need permission from > > every single contributor to change the license and this can prove > > quite tricky. 1000 times trickier than fixing the original license. > > This is incorrect. The current license states that once contributed, code > cannot be withdrawn, and that the contributor has surrendered their > copyright claim to TT. Therefore, only TT needs to consent to a license > change. Wrong. You do not withdraw the code, you simply do not give permission to use or distribute under a different license. If Wolfgang thinks that the submitter should in advance give permission to every thinkable change of the licence than he must definitely write it explicitly into the licence or require special formalities when accepting code. The license as is clearly does not say this.. maybe simply a problem with formulation but I would consider this a *very* *big* problem. > If you think this is bad, well, you surrender the same control under the > GPL. not quite the same. It says version X or any later version of GPL at your choice. However this section is not part of GPL so you can always limit it to GPL version 2 for example. Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Zidlicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Did you ask Marcel? No he told me. -- 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] This is the LICENCE
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Cable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >We have to accept this unique license or ignore SMSQ. Some will participate and >some will not. It is troubling that the developers of the most advanced QL >hardware system feel locked out but maybe once we see what happens feelings can >be soothed and solutions worked out. If there is a comspiracy it is a >comspiracy >in a teapot that affects no more than 300 people on the planet. This has been >beat to death and we all have our own opinions by now so lets move on. I am >interested to see what happens next Nice to have a breath of sanity here. Shame I missed out seeing t you in the US. -- 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] This is the LICENCE
- Original Message - From: "Roy Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:56 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE > Roy Wood is correct. Get on and use the present license and let us make some constructive progress. Otherwise the QL will die, because intransigence.
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
> Aha, now we get to know the Merz way of compromise: > "Accept it or leave it". > Thanks for making your attitude that clear Aha - you just joined the group, haven't you? Just like your brother: pick parts out of the context, twist it > > but then think about SMSQ/Es being sold with Q40/Q60s. > > On what basis are they/will they be? You better sort that > > out with registrar. ... any clever comment here, Claus? Jochen
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Claus Graf wrote: > Aha, now we get to know the Merz way of compromise: > "Accept it or leave it". > Thanks for making your attitude that clear Claus, No offense to your brother, but you always seemed a lot more reasonable than him. Can you please help me with something? I'm not asking these as flippant "making my point" questions, I'm really trying to understand the answers, but I can't pick out the real answers from the hype and point scoring ON EITHER SIDE. Ok, I understand the ill feeling about the license not being true 'open source', but what I do not understand is... 1. How does the license put the Qx0 team in a worse position with respect to SMSQ development? 2. What steps or hurdles does this license put in your path, and what steps, short of GPL, could be taken to resolve those obstacles? 3. What advantages does the proposed license have for you? 4. What is it you're worried about? The impression that is being given by "your side" is that you wish to develop features for the Qx0 family exclusively, and you seem worried about having to share those developments with other branches of the SMSQ family. That is the impression - what is the reality? I hope you see this as an objective and sincere attempt by ME, for ME to understand your position. Sincerely, Dave
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Richard Zidlicky wrote: >> You can have free 'Open Source' code and Richard et al will write for it >> and Marcel and a few others will quit > > Did you ask Marcel? He knows my opinion quite well, yes. And what he wrote is true. To make this clear up front I will NOT participate in a GPLed SMSQ/E. Why? Because virtually everything one does with the SMSQ/E sources includes lines, code or include files from Tony. I don't want to be forced to release my code this way. I don't mind others having my sources, but then they have them because I WANT them to have them, not because I'm FORCED by some "give everything away for free" licence. I've kept quiet for quite a while, mainly because I was too busy (I did for example some actual coding on the SMSQ/E sources. Some code all platforms will profit from). So what are my intentions in all this, some might ask. First of all I'd simply like QPC to stay the way it is. No much argument there, I suppose. The second point is that some people would like me to write a colour driver for the Aurora hardware. To be frank I am not too keen on doing this and if anybody else wants to do it, fine, go ahead. I'd just do it to do the QL scene a favour. I am however not that charitable, i.e. if I would invest any time into writing the driver I need to be able to collect some revenue. Like Wolfgang said, the revenue will probably be pretty bad compared to the work involved. But that's fine with me, at least it's better than nothing! The screen driver would definitely be based on Tony's code, i.e. if his code was GPLed I'd be forced to give the sources of it away, limiting the already bad revenue even more, probably to almost zero. I simply WON'T do it under those circumstances. Remember, this would be no loss for ME, I don't have any personal interest in doing them. This would just be a loss for the QL scene. Therefore the possibility for "not so open" new sources was built into the licence. My example would not have any impact on the Q40 part of the source tree and I don't plan ANY addition that would be "secret" and would in any way affect the common core of the systems. BUT if somebody was going to implement a GD3 driver or whatever and says he'll only do it when he's going to get some money for it, then I too say "Fine, go ahead! Better for money than not at all!". I am not going to do that, but why stop somebody who's willing to? Therefore I don't want to exclude any commercial developments up front. Like many people here I don't fully understand where the problem with this licence is. SMSQ got cheaper (QPC got cheaper this way, too), you can have a look at its sources and also improve it if you like to. To be frank, I don't expect the latter to happen very often. I fear that I will be one of the very few who can actually work with the code and do some stuff that is not specific to the Q40. The biggest advantage in getting the sources after all is in my eyes that application programmer can see how the OS does some things and maybe understand why it doesn't do other things like they think it should. Never underestimate the work involved in doing any change. The new 16bit shadow routine in QPC (which by the way is also already prepared for running under Q40) took me a dozen hours to write! Ridiculous? Yes, it is. But some things are not as easy as they might seem to be. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
> As for your compromise: what I read out of the mails was, that > some Q40/Q60 programmers would only work under GPL. Fine, thats > what they DEMAND, but where's the compromise? Maybe I'm wrong, > but it is pointless anyway as it will not become GPL - > Wolfgang said this quite clearly several mails ago. > I go ahead with this and with his license. > What YOU do is your business - accept it or leave it ... Aha, now we get to know the Merz way of compromise: "Accept it or leave it". Thanks for making your attitude that clear Claus > but then think about SMSQ/Es being sold with Q40/Q60s. > On what basis are they/will they be? You better sort that > out with registrar. > > Jochen
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
> Open source is not only GPL, so if my GPL idea was not what Tony Tebby had > in mind, this does nowhere mean that he would not have allowed Open Source. > However I will wait for his answer, to see clearer. and delay it even more ... then Wolfgang needs to reply back ... and so on. You don't give up, do you? Most people here on the list, except from you and Richard, seem to agree with the license after the recent modifications. Not everybody may be "happy" but they accept the compromise. If you want to be taken serious and the word "compromise" means to you what it seems to mean to all the others, then I'd say it is about time to accept it as it stands. Jim's mail was very good, and so was Dave's. And trying to skip Wolfgang AGAIN, who is approved by Tony, is not what I would call helpful, nor would I call this looking for a compromise. You gain more from the license than anybody else. For Marcel, hardly anything changes, for Roy and myself, hardly anything changes. You, however, get opportunities AND save money, and you keep on complaining and delaying. We are wasting our time here for you - that's what several people tried to tell you! Jochen
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
That is THE good opinion: please stop to suspect everybody of conspiracy or corruption or what... this LICENCE driven by Wolf and other historical supporters is the right way ! Jean-Louis DIANOUX - Original Message - From: Bill Cable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE > > > > > Just to crystalise the issue, what exactly are you losing under the > > proposed revised license? I can see what you'd gain (access to the source, > > ability to contribute to SMSQ's source directly, etc) but what do you > > lose? You couldn't do this before, so I'm at a loss to see how you'd be > > worse off... > > > > Dave, > > Richard felt as some others : > > > I do firmly believe that this *was* the chance to overcome the > > split between QDOS, Minerva, QDOS Classic and SMSQ. > > We have to accept this unique license or ignore SMSQ. Some will participate and > some will not. It is troubling that the developers of the most advanced QL > hardware system feel locked out but maybe once we see what happens feelings can > be soothed and solutions worked out. If there is a comspiracy it is a comspiracy > in a teapot that affects no more than 300 people on the planet. This has been > beat to death and we all have our own opinions by now so lets move on. I am > interested to see what happens next. > > -- Bill >
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > > However strange it may seem to you, TT himself would allow Open Source. > >No. Don't try to spread this legend, you're in opposition to your own mails. Also Tony Tebby himself wrote me, that you proposed Open Source. He even asked me if not the Linux model would be better, in case a different model is required. It is also absolutely clear that Tony Tebby would have allowed distribution for free. This way your proposal would have turned into something that could be vaguely understood as an Open Source license. Not because Open Source software must be free of charge, but because that would remove the need for separate commercial agreements outside your "license", and gives all authors some guarantee their code will be *available*. Open source is not only GPL, so if my GPL idea was not what Tony Tebby had in mind, this does nowhere mean that he would not have allowed Open Source. However I will wait for his answer, to see clearer. Peter
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On 13 Jun 2002, at 14:23, Richard Zidlicky wrote: (...) > Did you ask Marcel? I don't see that he could suffer any kind > of disadvantage with GPL.. he is probably the last one who needs > to worry about GPL. He can suffer some inconvenience with this > license. I did not ask Marcel specifically. To do so, would be conspiring with him, wouldn't it? I think he reads this list... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On 13 Jun 2002, at 14:11, Richard Zidlicky replying to an email in reply to Peter Graf wrote: > > I'm afraid that the discussion about GPL (and whether I know it or > > not) will lead us too far astray. Let's just say that I will abide > > by my opinion on it. > > you do not have an opinion on it. You just plainly refuse to think > about a reasonable license. OK, fine I don't have an opinion on it, then. I thought I did, though, and I'll still abide by my non-opinion... > this is deceiving at best. Some serious developpers (not me) already > explicitly wrote on this list that may contribute to SMSQ depending on > the conditions of the new license. Deceiving, in an open email where I voice my opinion(oops, sorry, non opinion)? I think not. As to the rest : the operative word being "may". > I do firmly believe that this *was* the chance to overcome the > split between QDOS, Minerva, QDOS Classic and SMSQ. Since SMSQ/E is the successor to QDOS, there is no "split" as such. > > Oh, I have read exactly what you said, and my answer still stands. > > So you still laugh about it? Oh yes - the idea of me being a sinister fiend coralling in SMSQ/E to avoid letting it into freedom is just too much to take seriously. > Well I sure did have a few nice laughs > about your perception of software development, licensing, copyright > issues, GPL and a few other things. Again, that's absolutely fine with me. I'm at peace with my opinions. > Perhaps we would get a bit futher with more humor. However, simply > laughing at someones arguments isn't the way to convince me, quite the > opposite - especially since you have left a whole bunch of my > arguments simply unanswered. Since (i) I wasn't replying to your email but to Peter, that's not surprising and (ii) your "arguments" are just a rehash of your older arguments, that's not surprising, either. > You are the one presenting ridiculous arguments here so that turns up > the question why you don't present reasonable arguments Ah - but the most reasonable argument is totally unreasonable in the ears of those refusing to hear it, isn't it? > I am not at all surprised someone smells conspiration. Mulder mode on I am. Conspiration means at least 2 persons doing it. So, who am I conspiring with/against? I presume you suppose that I am conspiring against Peter Graf -I fail to see who else it could be. However, since the system under which PG will fall is the same as for all versions of SMSQ/E, I fail to see how that is a conspiracy against PG specifically. Or else, I am conspiring against all of the SMSQ/E world. Oh yes, that must be it. Mulder mode off > I think you could dispel > those concerns quite easilly if you would take arguments seriously > instead of laughing at them. I think that, failing to do exactly what YOU want me to do, I will NOT be able to dispell anything. I have tried, and now I frankly think that I have tried enough. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
> > Just to crystalise the issue, what exactly are you losing under the > proposed revised license? I can see what you'd gain (access to the source, > ability to contribute to SMSQ's source directly, etc) but what do you > lose? You couldn't do this before, so I'm at a loss to see how you'd be > worse off... > Dave, Richard felt as some others : > I do firmly believe that this *was* the chance to overcome the > split between QDOS, Minerva, QDOS Classic and SMSQ. We have to accept this unique license or ignore SMSQ. Some will participate and some will not. It is troubling that the developers of the most advanced QL hardware system feel locked out but maybe once we see what happens feelings can be soothed and solutions worked out. If there is a comspiracy it is a comspiracy in a teapot that affects no more than 300 people on the planet. This has been beat to death and we all have our own opinions by now so lets move on. I am interested to see what happens next. -- Bill
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:44:29AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I'm afraid that the discussion about GPL (and whether I know it or > > not) will lead us too far astray. Let's just say that I will abide by my > > opinion on it. > > you do not have an opinion on it. You just plainly refuse to think > about a reasonable license. Then went on to say: > Perhaps we would get a bit futher with more humor. However, simply > laughing at someones arguments isn't the way to convince me, quite > the opposite - especially since you have left a whole bunch of my > arguments simply unanswered. Richard, It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, or if you have a better way or not. If you in one breath dismiss out of hand what someone's saying, and moments later say laughing at someone's arguments isn't a way to convince you, well, that comes across very strangely... Just to crystalise the issue, what exactly are you losing under the proposed revised license? I can see what you'd gain (access to the source, ability to contribute to SMSQ's source directly, etc) but what do you lose? You couldn't do this before, so I'm at a loss to see how you'd be worse off... Dave
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:56:31AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: > > > No licence is set in stone (as Steve Hall remarked to me on the day > > before I left for the US show) and you can always change it later if it > > proves not to work. > > you can't. Once other people contributed you need permission from > every single contributor to change the license and this can prove > quite tricky. 1000 times trickier than fixing the original license. This is incorrect. The current license states that once contributed, code cannot be withdrawn, and that the contributor has surrendered their copyright claim to TT. Therefore, only TT needs to consent to a license change. If you think this is bad, well, you surrender the same control under the GPL. HTH Dave
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:44:29AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On 11 Jun 2002, at 22:21, Peter Graf wrote: > > > > > Obvously not knowing he GPL. > > I'm afraid that the discussion about GPL (and whether I know it or > not) will lead us too far astray. Let's just say that I will abide by my > opinion on it. you do not have an opinion on it. You just plainly refuse to think about a reasonable license. > > The current scheme is the best way to further split the QL world. Open > > source might re-unite SMSQ/E with other parts of the QL world, and > > developers who have previously not worked for it. > > I don't believe that for a semi-second. > No people who have not previously worked for SMSQ/E will > suddenly come out and say "hey, a great new licence, let's do > wome work under it". this is deceiving at best. Some serious developpers (not me) already explicitly wrote on this list that may contribute to SMSQ depending on the conditions of the new license. I do firmly believe that this *was* the chance to overcome the split between QDOS, Minerva, QDOS Classic and SMSQ. > > >To be quite frank, the opposition between the defenders of "code > > >freedom" and the sinister "lobby" preventing the good code to escape > > >into that freedom is so exaggerated that I can't help but laugh about > > >it. > > > > Better read just what I say and don't build fairytales beyond that. If > > you want Q60 SMSQ/E development, allow open source or at least a > > compromise. > > Oh, I have read exactly what you said, and my answer still stands. So you still laugh about it? Well I sure did have a few nice laughs about your perception of software development, licensing, copyright issues, GPL and a few other things. Perhaps we would get a bit futher with more humor. However, simply laughing at someones arguments isn't the way to convince me, quite the opposite - especially since you have left a whole bunch of my arguments simply unanswered. You are the one presenting ridiculous arguments here so that turns up the question why you don't present reasonable arguments - I am not at all surprised someone smells conspiration. I think you could dispel those concerns quite easilly if you would take arguments seriously instead of laughing at them. Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:56:31AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: > No licence is set in stone (as Steve Hall remarked to me on the day > before I left for the US show) and you can always change it later if it > proves not to work. you can't. Once other people contributed you need permission from every single contributor to change the license and this can prove quite tricky. 1000 times trickier than fixing the original license. > You can have free 'Open Source' code and Richard et al will write for it > and Marcel and a few others will quit Did you ask Marcel? I don't see that he could suffer any kind of disadvantage with GPL.. he is probably the last one who needs to worry about GPL. He can suffer some inconvenience with this license. Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On 11 Jun 2002, at 16:34, Richard Zidlicky wrote: (snip - mostly of the GPL licence - you have your understanding, I have mine) >> > > Whoa there. > > > > Would "those" who do these bad and evil things please step > > forward. > > Hmmm - nobody? How strange. > > really funny that, but aren't you supposed to give the answer >here? I don't know, you tell me. I never talked about a lobby, Peter Graf did. > I have asked you several times privately and at least one time in > public who those subjects are or what kind of project they have in > mind that must be so desperately included in core SMSQ and requires > royalty payments in the hope we could find some compromise based on > facts. > I have not seen an answer from you so I gain the impression that > you are just playing with the public. I see. So what you means is that the fact that I am able to anticipate that there might be "commercial" developments in the QL world, means that there is a "lobby" pressuring me (and/or TT). Fine. I'll just let that stand for itself. > It would be sure cheaper for Peter, but perhaps he wants a few > guarantees that your licence doesn't give him. Back to that question again. I fail to see what guarantees he hasn't got. He STILL hasn't said he wants to become a reseller, so, of course, he STILL can't be sure that somebody will sell Q60 SMSQ/E. > With your licence SMSQ clearly looses because nobody has sufficient > guarantees on anything. Even Marcel Kilgus should realise that > this license can make his life "interesting". All the sudden there > may be parts of the OS from which he will not have the source but may > still be buggy or interact badly with his code and affect stability > of QPC. No change there, is there? What you seem to be proposing is that, since in your proposal he would have the source code, Marcel could then debug other's code... Thanks, but no thanks? > According to your interpretation he is not even allowed to > disassemble this code or debug the problem. Hardly an improvement > for him. Marcel, or you, or anybody, we're all in the same boat. This is why testing will become important, of course. This is why versioning will also become important, of course. I think we will be able to manage. > Regarding my position on this license, I would only do paid work > under this conditions. What an interesting development. > I mean *paid*, not some ridiculous 20 Euro > anually from royalties. SMSQ sales will be so weak for foreseeable > future that you have absolutely no way to "reward" someone just by > giving him royalties, all that you achieve with this part of the > license is tainting the copyright *forever*. Scratch that nonsense, > there are easier ways to make money with SMSQ. Great that we don't all think like that. I agree with you, that financial revenues are pretty bad in our small community - so fortunately, not all want the horrendous (in our context) amounts of money you want. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On 11 Jun 2002, at 22:21, Peter Graf wrote: > > Obvously not knowing he GPL. I'm afraid that the discussion about GPL (and whether I know it or not) will lead us too far astray. Let's just say that I will abide by my opinion on it. (snip) > Do you really see what you are accusing me? Hey Peter, why am I accusing you of something? I only point out to what your proposal may lead (in my opinion). (...) > No, under the current scheme, the Q60 target will practically be > frozen, because no commercial developer is left for 68060 > > > > development TT was the only one. A dead target can not benefit > from "advantages". There are so many answers to that (eg. TT was the only one - he isn' any more -isn't that a better situation?). But, generally, I would dispute that statement. You seem to fear that the Q60/Q40 will be left behind in the development cycles. My role as registrar is to make sure that a coherent version for all machines exists. I have already set out a number of times that, in my mind, this means that the Q40/Q60 will profit, just like any other machine, from the general development that is done for SMSQ/E. > If you really know better about Q60 development "advantages" than me, > give guarantees the work I pointed out will be done under your NDA. If > not leave it to the open source developers to decide under which > license they can work. > If I read your latest emails here to this list correctly, you seem to fear that there will be no development for the Q40/Q60 any more, because those who might be able/inclined to work with the Q40/Q60 are so miffed about the licence as it stands, that they won't do anything under it (dare I mention Richard). However, I still think that if these people refuse to work, then this is by THEIR choice. The way around this is not for them to try to bully their way into a licence with which the copyright holder, after all, agrees, by means of threats such as "this way or no way". Please don't misunderstand me - I do respect Richard's opinion that, philosopfically, he "can't" work with such a licence. But I profoundly and fundamentally disagree with him over this. Give it a try and see! > The current scheme is the best way to further split the QL world. Open > source might re-unite SMSQ/E with other parts of the QL world, and > developers who have previously not worked for it. I don't believe that for a semi-second. No people who have not previously worked for SMSQ/E will suddenly come out and say "hey, a great new licence, let's do wome work under it". > >Those who insist on establishing their own commercial NDA based > >on TT's work, and on future free work of others, should consider that > >they also prevent this income for TT. In favour of forwarding to TT > >EUR 10 each for a few boards, and discouraging our best 68060 > >developers. > > > >Whoa there. > > > >Would "those" who do these bad and evil things please step > >forward. > >Hmmm - nobody? How strange. > > Oh, do you accept Open Source now? And what allows you to come to that strange opinion? () > I have already asked you who exactly turned my proposal down. > You keep it a secret. I don't know your secrets. Aha, so now I keep vital info from you. OK, let's explain (again!) the genral scheme under which I work the licence, and deal with proposals: I generally draft the text (e.g. of the licence). I then ask the opinion of those who were at Eindhoven - for no other reason than that they were there and helped set up this scheme. I then either ask TT about it, or if there is a general consensus that I can live with, make the proposal (or rejection of proposal) public. An exception was your offer for 2000 EUR. Since that money would go to TT directly, I only asked him or an opinion. The result, unfortunately for you, was the same (see my other email in reply to Robert). Peter, if you seriously think that I am in any way out to defraud you or the Q40/Q60 or the SMSQ/E for it, then I can't help you. > However strange it may seem to you, TT himself would allow Open > Source. No. > >Since you raise the queston of money, > > Just to put things straight: Those insisting on a commercial NDA have > raised the question of money, not me. I would happily accept a > non-commercial license. But if my money is needed so the Q60 > developers and users have freedom to work and enjoy, well, I will give > my share. Just to put things straight - nobody here asked you for money. All I am saying is that the end user, who gets a product pays money out of which 10 EUR go to TT. YOU have offered money, I haven't. > I'm not in a generous mood, I'm with the back against the wall. I don't understand this comment. Who puts your back to the wall. What or who stops you from selling SMSQ/E for the Q40/Q60 right now? > >why not do the following: become a reseller but DON'T charge for the > >Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E - and pay TT 10 EUR for each copy thus "
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
OK, other than an earlier plead for sanity, I have stayed out of this discussion up to now. However, now that the modified license has been out for a while and everyone has had a chance to go back and force, I would like to give my opinion as one of the likely few remaining 'Commercial Developers'. ___ First of all, I would like to make a few general observations: 1) as far as I can tell, this was not really meant to be 'open source'. I believe that, early in this series, open source was used in a fairly general sense and several people latched onto it solidly (and don't seem to want to let go). - as far as I can tell, from these threads and several conversations, Tony never stated that this was to be open source - Tony seems to be willing to let others move forward with SMSQ/E. The reasons for this are unknown to me but I can only suspect that it is partly rooted in the familiar not enough time problem . this is extremely generous of him. He could have kept it to himself and just not done any more work (or minimal amounts) on it. 2) the agreement to release the code for external development and with such generous provisions has been done between Tony and those he chose to deal with - all the rest of us can do is offer opinions and 'contribute' where possible - it is up to the original agreement holders to implement what they feel is best for the QL community and which will satisfy Tony's desires . unless someone has been part of these discussions, they should not offer 'opinions' or 'suggestions' as to the original agreement or motives behind them - they simply can't have all the facts 3) up until this discussion of releasing the SMSQ/E source code and binaries for external development, it has always been controlled and developed by one person, Tony. There have been absolutely no guarantees before. In shape that it is taking now, there are at least more people involved. While there are still no guarantees, at least there is less chance that everyone will be wiped out by meteors at one time [ sorry - couldn't help myself :) ] - the fact that Tony has been very generous with his time and dedicated to the QL community so long leads me to believe that his decisions are being made with the best interest of the community in general (obviously this is my opinion, not a statement of knowledge - trying to play by my own comments here) . we have trusted Tony for some time now so why can't we trust his judgement here? - we will just have to continue trusting people to do what is right ( and I have NO problem with doing just that, with my gratitude for the efforts being taken ) 4) a reality check says that there is no money to be made in this business any more. I don't know of anyone making a real profit at this and personally can't comprehend how we could ever gather enough users back into the QL scene to make profits realistic again [ I will address the commercial development in a separate thread in this group ] - new users and profits are nice dreams but lets face it; with the costs differences, multimedia, ease of use, etc, we can't compete with the other options out there - I suspect that many if not most of us are still with the QL because we like each other (IE: have fun), like to tinker, and are just very comfortable with our little black box or equivalents ___ Ok, enough general top level comments. Looking at the last release of the license, I find that it is adequate and more so. It does: - allow for others to contribute to the primary SMSQ/E source (and I know of at least one person who is) - guarantees a single version of SMSQ/E for all systems [ as a commercial developer, this is a MUST ] - doesn't prevent anyone from making external extensions and drivers for extra capabilities and new hardware - maintains some control over what goes into it [ protection over bad code or runaway code ] - ensures that anyone can look at the sources - allows for anyone to become a dealer of the binaries with a few simple rules to follow - has taken into reasonable account the different conversations and suggestions that have been made It does not: - keep anyone from contributing - make anyone rich (or even much money at all) - restrict the growth of SMSQ/E onto new platforms To be honest, it is not perfect. I could complain about a few points here and there. But I won't. Simply because it is a far better deal than we had before, holds a chance for continued growth, and offers a good framework to start with. As has been stated, it can be modified as we go. It is important that we all agree to give it a try and put some trust in all those people who have over the years poured their efforts into this community. If we don't do this, then the QL scene will die a quick and painful death. For those of you who just can't accept it and refuse to give it a try, I
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Having been away for a while and then reading all of this on my return all I can hear is the sound of people furiously painting themselves into their own corners Richard will not write for SMSQ/E unless it is completely free or he gets paid a lot of money. Peter cannot get anyone else to write his drivers / improvements for him except Richard or someone else with a similar attitude. All of you spend a lot of time quoting acronyms and licences at one another and not one word of it is constructive or even close to a real discussion. In your fury to 'save' SMSQ/E you suddenly find yourselves each holding a few scraps of its flesh and saying 'there you are - I told you to back off and do it my way' while it bleeds to death. When it does you can hold up your clenched fist and say 'Ah but I tried to free the code!' and I am sure you will feel a lot better about it too. Someone might even believe you. No licence is set in stone (as Steve Hall remarked to me on the day before I left for the US show) and you can always change it later if it proves not to work. Having seen an email from TT he leaves the ball pretty much in Wolfgang's and Jochen's court so I suggest you all calm down. Accept the current licence as it is and see how it works. I would state this again. For my part I expect to gain very little as a result of this commercial licence. We have already halved the price of the product and the phones are not exactly jammed. If you want to add a free upgrade to the existing code I will distribute it for free so I will not make a penny. If you want to add a paid upgrade I will pass on your fee to you. This will not make a profit for me at all. What it will mean is that code which is available from the approved sources is the approved and tested code and the user will at least have some guarantee that it will do the job and be consistent over all platforms which have sufficient hardware support for the features. You can have free 'Open Source' code and Richard et al will write for it and Marcel and a few others will quit or you can have the current licence and the opposite will happen. I will hazard a guess that there are more QPC users than the whole of the UQLX/Qxxx scene put together (with a few crossovers) but we do not want this split. This is not a fantasy, I have spoken with many of these parties. OK, I have been quiet for a while because I was away. This is how I feel. The QL scene does not make any money for me - it has cost me money in the last two years. I am trying to support as many of the users as I can and the same goes for Jochen and many others who are still active, spend the money to get to shows in foreign countries and, in general, make an effort. -- 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] This is the LICENCE
Peter Graf wrote: > > Jochen Merz wrote: > > > > >Wolfgang is doing all this in good faith, I'm sure, and I am also > > > >sure that he may be willing to change if it becomes clear that > > > >things don't work the way they were planned to work (hoping > > > >that it is not deliberately sabotaged). > > > > > > Who do you suspect of deliberate sabotage? > > > Were all those compromise proposals which have been turned down, deliberate > > > sabotage? > > > >Sorry, why are you so negative? I don't accuse anybody. > >I was not talking about past, it was about future ... > > So you raise public suspicion against persons of deliberate sabotage in the > future. > Who are the persons? What kind of sabotage are you talking about? I am not going to waste anymore time on THIS rubbish. The key sentence of my last few mails were: Give the license a chance, otherwise we keep writing endless emails forever and nothing will get done. You ALWAYS skip the positive bits and avoid replying to positive suggestions, and lead discussions to interpret things in a way they were never meant to be. Pick a sentence out of the context, twist it, misinterpret it and lead the discussion away to areas where it keeps on leading nowhere. No, thanks. As for your compromise: what I read out of the mails was, that some Q40/Q60 programmers would only work under GPL. Fine, thats what they DEMAND, but where's the compromise? Maybe I'm wrong, but it is pointless anyway as it will not become GPL - Wolfgang said this quite clearly several mails ago. I go ahead with this and with his license. What YOU do is your business - accept it or leave it ... but then think about SMSQ/Es being sold with Q40/Q60s. On what basis are they/will they be? You better sort that out with registrar. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Jochen Merz wrote: > > >Wolfgang is doing all this in good faith, I'm sure, and I am also > > >sure that he may be willing to change if it becomes clear that > > >things don't work the way they were planned to work (hoping > > >that it is not deliberately sabotaged). > > > > Who do you suspect of deliberate sabotage? > > Were all those compromise proposals which have been turned down, deliberate > > sabotage? > >Sorry, why are you so negative? I don't accuse anybody. >I was not talking about past, it was about future ... So you raise public suspicion against persons of deliberate sabotage in the future. Who are the persons? What kind of sabotage are you talking about? Peter
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
> >Wolfgang is doing all this in good faith, I'm sure, and I am also > >sure that he may be willing to change if it becomes clear that > >things don't work the way they were planned to work (hoping > >that it is not deliberately sabotaged). > > Who do you suspect of deliberate sabotage? > Were all those compromise proposals which have been turned down, deliberate > sabotage? Sorry, why are you so negative? I don't accuse anybody. I was not talking about past, it was about future ... Why not see the first (positive) part of the sentence? Give the license a chance, otherwise we keep writing endless emails forever and nothing will get done. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Jochen Merz wrote: >You could have kept buying fairly static SMSQ/E licenses at about >40 EUR, as it was agreed with Tony - until Wolfgang got something >going which would help you in every way - less payment [...] As you know well, it would have also been acceptable for me if Tony continued to work, under the old conditions, and I had offered Tony more money to implement several improvements. If Tony gives up, and allows open source, this changes the situation. You still have a commercial developer working for your SMSQ/E target under your strictly commercial NDA. Tony Tebby was the only *commercial* developer who would work for native 68060 hardware on SMSQ/E. >Wolfgang is doing all this in good faith, I'm sure, and I am also >sure that he may be willing to change if it becomes clear that >things don't work the way they were planned to work (hoping >that it is not deliberately sabotaged). Who do you suspect of deliberate sabotage? Were all those compromise proposals which have been turned down, deliberate sabotage? >Remember, the difference between the previous status of SMSQ/E >and the license as drawn by Wolfgang gives you most benefit >and chances - already as it is. OK I remember and repeat again in short what I said in my first posting: * Previous SMSQ/E status: Tony working commercial for my hardware design. OK. * Next SMSQ/E status: Tony allowing open source. OK. * Current SMSQ/E status: Strictly commercial NDA under construction by a third party. Attempts to force Tonys work for my design under these conditions. Not OK at all! Unless I had an affordable commercial developer for 68060, I would have to go crazy to see this as "most benefit and chances" for Q60. >I think it would only be fair to Wolfgang to stop complaining >now and give him and the license a chance. As you know well, Wolfgang is welcome by me to lead the development. The problem are just your strange strictly commercial conditions, which lock out good developers. >Who keeps complaining about "open source GPL" or nothing? So tell us at least one single person who has asked for "open source GPL or nothing"! >Can't see much of a compromise attitude there. Do you mean you see no compromise attitude in the compromise proposals made, e.g. by Dylwin and Joachim? Peter
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
At 05:09 PM 6/11/2002 +0100, you wrote: >On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > > > Richard wrote: > > > I will NEVER agree to GPL. Under GPL, as soon as you use the > > > tiniest little bit of something "GPL'd", you HAVE to make your > > > code GPL, too. > >Hmmm? > >My understanding, as an open source fan, is that the GPL is infectious - >any software that includes GPL'd code is also GPL'd. You cannot use GPL'd >code in non-GPL releases. It is OK to use GPL code for your own purposes, but if you provide the whole package to somebody else, you either have to remove the GPL'd code, or release the whole thing as GPL. I see this feature of GPL as a good thing. This prevents somebody from "stealing" somebody else's code and making it commercial or whatever. If you find the GPL too restrictive in this respect, then don't "steal" the code and write it yourself. >The C libraries and gcc are GPL'd. The GCC libraries are not GPL'd. They fall under a GNU Library License, which allows GCC compiled code to be sold commercially, even including the binary libraries (but not the source libraries). GNU has Licenses for Software, Libraries and Documentation as three separate licenses, because each have unique issues. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
I won't reply to all this "my way" or whatever, as it is not "my way". > So don't insist on a strange NDA that is likely to split our community. > Allow a license so all can join! I cannot see Wolfgangs license stopping people to join - only a certain group demands: my way or no way! Nobody stops you from delevoping Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E under the current license except for yourself - repeating the opposite over and over again does not make it true. If you want, you CAN. You could have kept buying fairly static SMSQ/E licenses at about 40 EUR, as it was agreed with Tony - until Wolfgang got something going which would help you in every way - less payment, chance to develop the OS further on and all I read from you are demands and demands, accusations and trouble for Wolfgang. Wolfgang is doing all this in good faith, I'm sure, and I am also sure that he may be willing to change if it becomes clear that things don't work the way they were planned to work (hoping that it is not deliberately sabotaged). But why shouldn't it work? Most of the problems have been sorted out. From what I see there are no major problems except from people who ONLY may do some work IF their demands are fulfilled. The only license they would join is the one they want to - no compromise, whatever changes Wolfgang may make. Remember, the difference between the previous status of SMSQ/E and the license as drawn by Wolfgang gives you most benefit and chances - already as it is. I think it would only be fair to Wolfgang to stop complaining now and give him and the license a chance. > So please give up your resistance against compromise. WHAT??? I always agreed on the changes proposed by Wolfgang, initiated by people on this list, especially all the latest changes. Who keeps complaining about "open source GPL" or nothing? Can't see much of a compromise attitude there. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Jochen Merz wrote: >It is impossible to please anybody anyway, and I think you >have worked out a good compromise. As far as Q60 is concerned, all compromise proposals were turned down. Not only mine. Also those from well-known impartial persons. >Of course, if there's somebody who ONLY wants it to be done >his way, then, I believe, there's nothing more you can do. Unfortunately this applied pretty exact to your commercial NDA, as far as availability of executables is concerned. See the comments made by others, not me. >Peter really seems to be wanting to go "his" way, Well I propose Open Source like the majority of developers and users. This is how development works, when there is no significant commercial interest. There is nothing special about me. Open your eyes and look around the world!!! "Your" way with this strange NDA is surely much more special than Open Source. Unlike QPC SMSQ/E, Qx0 SMSQ/E has only non-commercial developers for the essential things. We need them! QPC itself can remain purely commercial. So why no open source OS? >but I feel that this may lead to disadvantages for current and >future Q40 and Q60 owners. I have been told that you don't wish to be involved with Q40 and Q60 SMSQ/E. Very likely the Q40 and Q60 users, developers and producers won't follow your feelings at this point. I'm sure they would like to see their OS version developed. >"Buying out" Q40/Q60 would most likely lead to development >splits, and the least signifant route will lose out. I would very much prefer not to "buy out". You are very much invited to join Open Source! Yes, you can even make a little money with it, and have more development. Why not consider a modern and liberal approach? Also keep in mind that I don't wish to "buy" anything for myself. The GPL gives freedom for all developers and users. And of course I don't insist on GPL, if something else is more acceptable for the majority of developrs. >If the already small group of QLers splits up, then this will >most likely increase the speed of the QL community dying. So don't insist on a strange NDA that is likely to split our community. Allow a license so all can join! >The few "commercial" authors left will be faced with even more >different versions of the operating system for even less >customers. Likely if your NDA persists. Unlikely with an Open Source SMSQ/E. >So I think what you're actually deciding here about is an absolutely >non-commercial QL scene run by Peter and Richard and maybe a >few others and shut down the QL shows and the rest as we know >it for years or carry on working together. Why not get yourself more information what open source, e.g. GPL means. Surely not what you are painting there. BTW non-commercial developers are the vast majority in the QL scene, not only a few. And: Under the GPL "free" doesn't necessarily mean "free of charge"! You are allowed to charge money, but you are not forced to do so. Maybe you can, in the long term, earn more money in a lively developed scene with the OS under the GPL than with your own NDA! You can concentrate on selling QPC, and your well-known support and handbooks. The OS license itself could be more liberal without affecting this. >Travelling to >QL shows costs us "commercial" dealers a lot of money, we >don't earn anything by doing this. So why all the fuss to keep SMSQ/E strictly commercial? >Again, "together" is the key word, isn't it? Yes, so don't lock out good open source developers with your NDA. >This not necessarily means everybody has to like each other, >but they should at least pull into the same direction - for >everybody's benefit. YES! >I really would not want to see the Q60 going the way which, for >example, CST's Thor went. So please give up your resistance against compromise. Peter
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Peter Graf wrote: > > Wolfgang wrote: > >> In view of this new development, I will of course take counsel with >> TT. The obvious result is that the licence will be delayed, and so >> will the release of the source code. Sorry. > > If we had simply used a well-established open source license instead of > creating and discussing a new commercial NDA, we could long be working > with the source code. >> However strange it may seem to you, the licence has been worked out >> with TT's agreement. > > However strange it may seem to you, TT himself would allow Open Source. I've tried to follow some of this licence dispute, but I've got totally lost [as to why each bit of the licence is there]...a couple of questions that have probably been answered, but a refresher [answer] would be useful as they really define what ought to be in the licence: 1 - What EXACTLY has TT offered wrt the source? [Was it a "I'm happy to give them to you to publish, provided you can come up with some licence to protect them?" Or a "I don't have time to develop it, so do you want them so you can?" "Oh, and by the way, I'll keep copyright over the sources, or shall I give them to you?" Or something [completely] different? Without answering this question, it is impossible to comment on the licence?] 2 - Once TT's offer has been explained, for what exactly is the licence? To provide TT some royalties (as a thanks)? To stop some one using TT's (and other's) code for self gain? To protect those who gain income (however minor) from distributing the OS? Or, again, something [completely] different? cm
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Wolfgang wrote: >In view of this new development, I will of course take counsel with >TT. The obvious result is that the licence will be delayed, and so >will the release of the source code. Sorry. If we had simply used a well-established open source license instead of creating and discussing a new commercial NDA, we could long be working with the source code. >I have expressed above my reluctance of the GPL licence. Obvously not knowing he GPL. >Let us take, for example, QPC. QPC, at least in some ways, builds on >SMSQ/E. If SMSQ/E were GPL, QPC would have to be made open source, too. No. >Why should Marcel Kilgus agree to that (and, no, I >have NOT discussed this with Marcel). Because QPC is not affected as to my best knowledge. QPC and the SMSQ/E binary for QPC are different files. >The result: no more QPC? What a nonsense. Why should QPC be GPLed because of SMSQ/E? Have you ever read the GPL? >Is it worth it? Do you really see what you are accusing me? Fact is that I would not have proposed the GPL if it would affect QPC itself. GPL also does not mean Jochen Merz can make no money. Under the GPL "free" does not necessarily mean "free of charge". >On the other hand, under the current scheme, the Q40 SMSQ/E >can benefit from the advantages brought into all of SMSQ/E. No, under the current scheme, the Q60 target will practically be frozen, because no commercial developer is left for 68060 development. TT was the only one. A dead target can not benefit from "advantages". If you really know better about Q60 development "advantages" than me, give guarantees the work I pointed out will be done under your NDA. If not leave it to the open source developers to decide under which license they can work. The current scheme is the best way to further split the QL world. Open source might re-unite SMSQ/E with other parts of the QL world, and developers who have previously not worked for it. >Those who insist on establishing their own commercial NDA based >on TT's work, and on future free work of others, should consider >that they also prevent this income for TT. In favour of forwarding to >TT EUR 10 each for a few boards, and discouraging our best 68060 >developers. > > >Whoa there. > >Would "those" who do these bad and evil things please step >forward. >Hmmm - nobody? How strange. Oh, do you accept Open Source now? Yes? Fine! Welcome to lead the Open Source SMSQ/E development :-)) >Just who are "those" Peter? I have already asked you who exactly turned my proposal down. You keep it a secret. I don't know your secrets. >However strange it may seem to you, the licence has been worked out with >TT's agreement. However strange it may seem to you, TT himself would allow Open Source. >Since you raise the queston of money, Just to put things straight: Those insisting on a commercial NDA have raised the question of money, not me. I would happily accept a non-commercial license. But if my money is needed so the Q60 developers and users have freedom to work and enjoy, well, I will give my share. > I'd like to say the following, >even though I try as much as possible to stay away from the >financial aspect of this: >The idea of paying 10 EUR to TT for each new copy sold was born >in Eindhoven - TT never asked for money. We thought, and still >think, that he should get some money for each copy sold. > >As to the question of paying 2000 EUR instead of forwarding 10 >EUR for each board - since you are in this generous mood, I'm not in a generous mood, I'm with the back against the wall. >why not do the following: become a reseller but DON'T charge for the >Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E - and pay TT 10 EUR for each copy thus "sold". >That way, nobody loses out: >TT doesn't because he gets fair money Would be a question for Tony, not me. However I appreciate his work. >You don't, because you don't pay too much for "a few boards" If I pay EUR 1 or EUR 2 or EUR 10 or EUR 45 per board or whatever is IRRELEVANT if the open source DEVELOPERS needed for Q60 won't work. When will you finally see that my intention is Q60 SMSQ/E *** DEVELOPMENT ***? >The user doesn't because he doesn't pay for the Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E. Of course the user will lose out without good Q60 SMSQ/E development. Do you think the Q60 users prefer a frozen OS to save a few EUR? >If there is a lobby that can not accept open source for their own >targets, please release at least the Q40/Q60 version, which I have >financed and now offer to pay even more, into freedom! >--- >Sorry, but whoa again. >With the provision that I haven't talked to TT about this at the time >of writing, I would like to say: >what lobby? >Am I a lobby? The answer is your secret. I don't know who needs to reject all the compromise proposals from Dylwin, Joachim, Richard, me and others. >To be quite frank, the opposition between the defenders of "code >freedom" and the sinister "lobby" preventing the good code to >esc
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > > > Richard wrote: > > > I will NEVER agree to GPL. Under GPL, as soon as you use the > > > tiniest little bit of something "GPL'd", you HAVE to make your > > > code GPL, too. > > > > you have obviously not even looked at GPL but only read some anti-GPL > > fud instead, otherwise you would know how ridiculous that claim is. > > Hmmm? > > My understanding, as an open source fan, is that the GPL is infectious - > any software that includes GPL'd code is also GPL'd. You cannot use GPL'd > code in non-GPL releases. If you directly include GPL'd code into your program than the resulting program should be GPL - but this is kind of obvious. You can't simply cut&paste code from some project and convert it to your copyright.. you can't do that even with BSD license which is exorbitantly "liberal". You are actually quite lucky if you can reuse the code at all - of course the current SMSQ license is much more restricted in this sense and doesn't allow reuse of code outside of SMSQ for whatever purpose at all. The relevant problems I see are this: - adding code to the project. By default if you add code to a GPL project it has to be GPL. Again, I see it as rather obvious that code added to some project should obey to its license so this is about as infectious as any license I can think of. As always the copyright holder can give permission to link with whichever code he likes. Note for example, that Linus Thorvalds has for the purpose of the Linux kernel defined linking so that code that uses the loadable module interface is explicitly free of any restriction and as you know there are plenty of binary only modules for Linux.. the same might be desirable for SMSQ. - linking against project. SMSQ is not a library so I don't see any problems here. It could be made explictily clear that any code using documented SMSQ interfaces in any way is free of any restriction if that makes anyone sleep better. - reusing parts of code SMSQ code in other projects.. the case I have explained above. The "infectious" aspect of GPL is partly a historical misunderstanding and partly FSF policy. GPL version 1 was not so well formulated in this respect.. perhaps not quite unintentionally but that is offtopic. Where GPL *is* really infectious is with libraries. If a library is (c) GPL (not LGPL like libc!) than only GPL programs can link against the library.. that is why there is LGPL which places no restriction on the program which is linked against LGPL software. Since SMSQ is not a library this is very offtopic but it might help to clear up some confusion by mentioning the one prominent GPL library - readline. It was deliberately made GPL to make it a bit harder to write non-GPL programms.. such things do happen but aren't relevent in the case of an operating system. Last not least you mentioned gcc. Of course GPL does not say anything about what can or can't be compiled with gcc, nor does it infect license of code that someone happened to compile with gcc.. just as writing something in a GPL editor doesn't affect the copyright of the text. All it says is that all parts of gcc itself have to be GPL and if you reuse some part of gcc in other projects than this other project has to be GPL. Richard
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > Richard wrote: > > I will NEVER agree to GPL. Under GPL, as soon as you use the > > tiniest little bit of something "GPL'd", you HAVE to make your > > code GPL, too. > > you have obviously not even looked at GPL but only read some anti-GPL > fud instead, otherwise you would know how ridiculous that claim is. Hmmm? My understanding, as an open source fan, is that the GPL is infectious - any software that includes GPL'd code is also GPL'd. You cannot use GPL'd code in non-GPL releases. The C libraries and gcc are GPL'd. Hmmm. Dex22
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
> > Richard wrote: > > -- > Why Wolfgang doesn't take GPL is beyond me. This license has > not onlytheoretical problems and Wolfgang is assuming much > more responsibility than he seems to want. > -- > > True - the responsibility is higher than I thought initially. However, if > I had one inch of doubt on being able to handle the stuff, I would > have resigned already. > > I will NEVER agree to GPL. Under GPL, as soon as you use the > tiniest little bit of something "GPL'd", you HAVE to make your > code GPL, too. you have obviously not even looked at GPL but only read some anti-GPL fud instead, otherwise you would know how ridiculous that claim is. GPL has restrictions, those affect only code that is linked with the "software" or parts of it. Copyright holder *defines* what "linking" means exactly but common understanding (approximately translated into SMSQ speak) is that this holds only for code that + is part of SMSQ (tautology I know..) + and/or useses "internal" structures or interfaces of "the software". Again, copyright holder decides what this means exactly. SMSQ modules for example would be under most circumstances free from any restrictions from GPL - as long as they don't textually cut&paste code from SMSQ. I consider this much less restricting than your license. If this is still too restrictive you can use LGPL and link and use non-(L)GPL code without restriction If you think that this is still too restrictive give special permissions though generally you will want as little special permissions as necessary. No, GPL is *not* the communist manifest.. > Peter Graf wrote: > > --- > Exactly. It would be so simple. > > Moreover, we have offered TT a compensation of EUR 2000.00 if he > releases SMSQ/E (at least the version which he wrote for me) > under the GPL. > > > > In view of this new development, I will of course take counsel with > TT. The obvious result is that the licence will be delayed, and so > will the release of the source code. Sorry. never mind. I appreciate that the licence already *did* improve in some ways and if there is someone who will want to develop with it I am sure he/she will appreciate this. > Peter continues > - > The GPL is a wellknown open source license, and thus encourages > non-commercial development, which is now needed for Q40/Q60, > because TT seems to give up. > --- > > I have expressed above my reluctance of the GPL licence. Let us > take, for example, QPC. QPC, at least in some ways, builds on > SMSQ/E. If SMSQ/E were GPL, QPC would have to be made open > source, too. Why should Marcel Kilgus agree to that (and, no, I > have NOT discussed this with Marcel). sorry but this is utter nonsense. As explained above, GPL only affects software which is linked with "this software" or parts thereof. QPC is not linked in technical sense with SMSQ and technically can never be because it is merely "a piece of hardware" on which SMSQ runs. This is just as absurd as claiming that every PC or PC emulator now has to be open source just because Linux which is GPL runs on it. Just to repeat it here: - all QDOS/SMSQ applications are not at all touched when SMSQ is GPL. - all emulators can continue to work unaffected. - absolutely no restriction for commercial or other drivers as long as they are loadable with 'lrespr' or similar - use LGPL or special permissions if you need more flexibility Personally I would not mind if some QPC related files of SMSQ would be completely outside the scope of this license which the copyright holder can easilly allow. > Peter continues: > > --- > Those who insist on establishing their own commercial NDA based > on TT's work, and on future free work of others, should consider > that they also prevent this income for TT. In favour of forwarding to > TT EUR 10 each for a few boards, and discouraging our best 68060 > developers. > > > Whoa there. > > Would "those" who do these bad and evil things please step > forward. > Hmmm - nobody? How strange. really funny that, but aren't you supposed to give the answer here? I have asked you several times privately and at least one time in public who those subjects are or what kind of project they have in mind that must be so desperately included in core SMSQ and requires royalty payments in the hope we could find some compromise based on facts. I have not seen an answer from you so I gain the impression that you are just playing with the public. > Just who are "those" Peter? However strange it may seem to you, > the licence has been worked out with TT's agreement. > > I have made it clear in the licence that you can do your own > development, and as long as it doesn't incorporate TT's code, you > can, OF
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Well said, Wolfgang, applause. Back from a very nice QL show in the USA, a few words from me: First of all, I'd say: leave the license as it is now else you will never get a result. You have asked for opinions and you have, in my opinion, adjusted the license so that it should suit most people. It is impossible to please anybody anyway, and I think you have worked out a good compromise. Of course, if there's somebody who ONLY wants it to be done his way, then, I believe, there's nothing more you can do. Peter really seems to be wanting to go "his" way, but I feel that this may lead to disadvantages for current and future Q40 and Q60 owners. "Buying out" Q40/Q60 would most likely lead to development splits, and the least signifant route will lose out. Whatever route this may be (Q60 OR QPC) is debateable, but there will be losers either way. We don't want and we don't need any losers. If the already small group of QLers splits up, then this will most likely increase the speed of the QL community dying. The few "commercial" authors left will be faced with even more different versions of the operating system for even less customers. So I think what you're actually deciding here about is an absolutely non-commercial QL scene run by Peter and Richard and maybe a few others and shut down the QL shows and the rest as we know it for years or carry on working together. Travelling to QL shows costs us "commercial" dealers a lot of money, we don't earn anything by doing this. But we like to be present and keep direct contact to other QLers. However, those who want everything for free are hardly seen at QL shows (no offense here, this is respected, I'm just mentioning this as a fact) but I expect that the people who try to keep the scene alive in social terms are respected too. Again, "together" is the key word, isn't it? This not necessarily means everybody has to like each other, but they should at least pull into the same direction - for everybody's benefit. I really would not want to see the Q60 going the way which, for example, CST's Thor went. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Joachim van der Auwera wrote: Ok, what if TT can not be reached or found (or worse) ? Or he has no time or does not know anybody fit for the job... What if the amount of code added is such that he is a co-author, and not the main author? How can you expect people to write free code which may be impossible to dictribute if this happens? --- What if TT dies now? Nobody expects people to write anything : you dont want to dont. Richard wrote: -- Why Wolfgang doesn't take GPL is beyond me. This license has not onlytheoretical problems and Wolfgang is assuming much more responsibility than he seems to want. -- True - the responsibility is higher than I thought initially. However, if I had one inch of doubt on being able to handle the stuff, I would have resigned already. I will NEVER agree to GPL. Under GPL, as soon as you use the tiniest little bit of something "GPL'd", you HAVE to make your code GPL, too. In my eyes, that licence is BY FAR more restrictive than the one for SMSQ/E. Joachim wrote In all the discussions about the state of the new license, I think many readers are not aware of how open source normally works, and possible commercial implications. (big snip of the rest). --- Thanks for clearing this up. As you say, there is no central versioning, no central control etc - which is what we try to avoid here. Joachim wrote: As far as I can see, this license means that each time a binary copy is passed on by the resellers, the fee for 10 EUR is to be paid to TT... If that is not what is intended (and that is what it seemed like before), then I think this has to be made explicit. -- The licence quite clearly says that some upgrades may be free. Same as now. Peter Graf wrote: --- Exactly. It would be so simple. Moreover, we have offered TT a compensation of EUR 2000.00 if he releases SMSQ/E (at least the version which he wrote for me) under the GPL. In view of this new development, I will of course take counsel with TT. The obvious result is that the licence will be delayed, and so will the release of the source code. Sorry. Peter continues - The GPL is a wellknown open source license, and thus encourages non-commercial development, which is now needed for Q40/Q60, because TT seems to give up. --- I have expressed above my reluctance of the GPL licence. Let us take, for example, QPC. QPC, at least in some ways, builds on SMSQ/E. If SMSQ/E were GPL, QPC would have to be made open source, too. Why should Marcel Kilgus agree to that (and, no, I have NOT discussed this with Marcel). The result: no more QPC? Is it worth it? On the other hand, under the current scheme, the Q40 SMSQ/E can benefit from the advantages brought into all of SMSQ/E. Peter continues: --- Those who insist on establishing their own commercial NDA based on TT's work, and on future free work of others, should consider that they also prevent this income for TT. In favour of forwarding to TT EUR 10 each for a few boards, and discouraging our best 68060 developers. Whoa there. Would "those" who do these bad and evil things please step forward. Hmmm - nobody? How strange. Just who are "those" Peter? However strange it may seem to you, the licence has been worked out with TT's agreement. I have made it clear in the licence that you can do your own development, and as long as it doesn't incorporate TT's code, you can, OF COURSE, do with it what you want -even have it distributed alongside with SMSQ/E (because you will refuse to have it within SMSQ/E). Since you raise the queston of money, I'd like to say the following, even though I try as much as possible to stay away from the financial aspect of this: The idea of paying 10 EUR to TT for each new copy sold was born in Eindhoven - TT never asked for money. We thought, and still think, that he should get some money for each copy sold. As to the question of paying 2000 EUR instead of forwarding 10 EUR for each board - since you are in this generous mood, why not do the following: become a reseller but DON'T charge for the Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E - and pay TT 10 EUR for each copy thus "sold". That way, nobody loses out: TT doesn't because he gets fair money You don't, because you don't pay too much for "a few boards" The user doesn't because he doesn't pay for the Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E. Peter continues -- If there is a lobby that can not accept open source for their own targets, please release at least the Q40/Q60 version, which I have financed and now offer to pay even more, into freedom! --- Sorry, but whoa again. With the provision that
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE > Hi all, > Ok, I've gone away and started to draft the licence. I think it's time > > to go forward - because this is now the only point stopping me from > distributing the sources to whoever will have them. > > Here is what I have come up with. > > > Wolfgang OK I've read that, it doesn't seem to be much different from when I first read about it. You should apply a simple test to these conditions as set out - if the conditions are right nearly everyone will agree to it, if people do not agree with it then the conditions are wrong. You are trying to make the people fit the licence, you should be making the licence fit the people. It does look like you have taken too much on, you might benefit if you shared more of the responsibility. Why not ask for an alternative licence to be drawn up by someone else and compare them, progress might be made. Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE - updates
As far as I can see, this license means that each time a binary copy is passed on by the resellers, the fee for 10 EUR is to be paid to TT... If that is not what is intended (and that is what it seemed like before), then I think this has to be made explicit. Joachim
RE: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On 6 Jun 2002, at 11:13, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > Good luck :o) > > Norman. Hey, this is the kind of comment/criticism I like: short and to the point. Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On 6 Jun 2002, at 11:13, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > Good luck :o) > Hey, that's the kind of comment/criticism I like: short and to the point... Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Good luck :o) Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE 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] This is the LICENCE
Hi all, Ok, I've gone away and started to draft the licence. I think it's time to go forward - because this is now the only point stopping me from distributing the sources to whoever will have them. Here is what I have come up with. LICENCE This licence sets out the terms under which this software and the documentation may be used. Any use of this software implied adhesion to these conditions of use and this licence. Headings used in this licence are there for indicative purposes only. 1 Definitions The software The software is the set of source code, intermediary code, binary code, compiled code and documentation, or any part or partss thereof, making up the SMSQ/E operating system and all of its extensions as supplied herewith. The binary version, also called compiled version, of the software is the software in the compiled form of the source code. Copyright holder The copyright holder is the person holding the copyright over the software as defined above. This person is Tony Tebby. Part of the software may be copyright by other persons. These persons are not the "copyright holder" as defined herein. Registrar The registrar is the person appointed by the copyright holder to keep coherent versions of the software and issue official versions thereof from time to time. The person, duties and rights of the registrar are set out in an annex hereto. Resellers A reseller is a person entitled by the copyright holder to sell the binary (i.e. compiled) code to the end users. A list of the current resellers is appended hereto. Software author A software author is either Tony Tebby or any person making a change/addition/modification to the software. 2 Copyright The software is copyright © Tony Tebby, 1990 to 2002. Additional copyright may lie with other persons. These persons are identified in an annex hereto. 3 Conditions of use. This software is supplied under the following conditions: A - Source code. In the following paragraphs, the term "source code" also encompasses documentation as it exists under this licence. Obtaining the source code Any person so interested may have access to the source code of the software. To obtain the source code, a request in this respect should be made to the registrar. Such request should be accompanied by 3 International Reply Coupons. The version of the source code thus distributed via the registrar, on CDRom, is the "official version" of the source code. The registrar is entitled to distribute only part of the source code and may also distribute, at his convenience, the source code via other media. Distribution of source code by others than the registrar 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 ottherwise, 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. - Via Email Distribution via Email is only allowed if the Email is sent out individually to the recipient having made the request. A system whereby an Email is automatically generated by software or hardware upon each or any request by a future recipient is NOT allowed. When distribution is made via Email, it is allowed to send only parts of the source code to the recipient, provided however, that in accordance to the requirement set out above, this licence is always sent together with such (part of the) source code. - Any distribution of the source code by persons other than the registrar results in a version that is NOT an official version of the source code. Compilation of source code Any person may compile the source code and thus obtain a binary (compiled) version and use it for itself. However, binary code may NOT be distributed other than through resellers. B - Changes/additions/modifications Any person may make any change/addition/modification to the software, and distribute it as source code together with the source code of the software under the above conditions. Any person having made such a change/addition/modification is a software author and, of course, retains entire copyright over the change/addition/modification thus made. Such change/addition/modification may also be distributed in binary form, provided
