Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi all, I just wanted to point out something to the general QL world at large: as you all know, SMSQ/E is being made available publicly, under a licence that was discussed at length here. This licence is now the current licence for all versions of SMSQ/E. Under this licence, only appointed resellers may sell the software, provided, notably, that a 10 euro payment is made to Tony Tebby for each copy sold. Today, D&D systems are selling the Q40/Q60. These are machines that contain SMSQ/E in ROM (they cannot boot otherwise). D&D have NOT even requested to become a software reseller. They are NOT paying the licence fees. This means that these people are currently selling something for which they have no licence and which they do not have the right to distribute - in other words, counterfeit software. Doesn't this mean that they are software pirates? Even worse, this means that YOU, when you are buying this machine with this software, are also using counterfeit software, and by extension, when using the Q40/Q60, you are also a software pirate. Do you really want to be? Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Wolfgang, I was under the impression that Peter had acquired (ie paid) the rights to resell/modify SMSQ/E... Since D&D systems act as his agents under British (and American) Common law (which not only gives them liability but also benefits), they are entitled to distribute SMSQ/E legally. They do not have the right to sell if for any other system but only for the Qx0 of course. All this of course is true provided that Peter DOES carry the right to modify/resell/develop SMSQ/E (which I believe is true). Even it isn't so, I do not believe that D&D would want to "hijack" the software only that there's an honest misunderstanding somewhere I hope :-) (And not taking sides In any case I am ABSOLUTELY certain that I am not violating ANY law as my Q40 is a used one bought originally from Q-Branch... :-) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Phoebus Dokos wrote: > I was under the impression that Peter had acquired (ie paid) the rights to > resell/modify SMSQ/E... No, he didn't. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Wolfgang, What if you already own a current legal copy of SMSQ/E in QPC2 or some other way when you buy a Q40/60 as many already do. Surely you do not have to buy it twice. -- Bill
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 5/11/2002 9:24:38 ??, ?/? Marcel Kilgus ??: > >Phoebus Dokos wrote: >> I was under the impression that Peter had acquired (ie paid) the rights to >> resell/modify SMSQ/E... > >No, he didn't. > >Marcel > > In that case you can forget what I wrote :-) Although my assumption IS legally correct (Just looked it up (Cheesman, H. Business Law, McGraw Hill, NY 2000)) since Peter didn't obtain permission then D&D in turn doesn't have permission as well... However I hope that everything is an honest misunderstanding (The last thing the QL world needs is problems of this nature) and let's leave it at that :-). Everybody knows so far that I do distance myself from these things and I wouldn't want my previous mail to be regarded as taking sides... Regards, Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 5/11/2002 9:36:12 ??, ?/? Bill Cable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > >Wolfgang, > >What if you already own a current legal copy of SMSQ/E in QPC2 or some other >way when you buy a Q40/60 as many already do. Surely you do not have to buy it >twice. > >-- Bill Now that's an interesting thought :-). However Bill, that's (legally) up to the software license. If it doesn't EXPLICITLY state that for every platform you NEED to have a separate copy of the software (I haven't read the finalized license in length but I seem to recall that once you have one legal version of SMSQ/E you can use the other ones) then a current SMSQ/E owner doesn't have a problem getting SMSQ/E from another source... However if that source CHARGES a fee for it then in that case there is a LEGAL problem which doesn't in any case concern the final user as he or she does have a license already... In which case (to restate the obvious) the dispute lies between the SMSQ/E source AND TT not both the end user and SMSQ/E source AND TT (Sounds complicated doesn't it?) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all, > > I just wanted to point out something to the general QL world at > large: as you all know, SMSQ/E is being made available publicly, > under a licence that was discussed at length here. > This licence is now the current licence for all versions of SMSQ/E. > > Under this licence, only appointed resellers may sell the software, > provided, notably, that a 10 euro payment is made to Tony Tebby > for each copy sold. > > Today, D&D systems are selling the Q40/Q60. These are > machines that contain SMSQ/E in ROM (they cannot boot > otherwise). > > D&D have NOT even requested to become a software reseller. They > are NOT paying the licence fees. > > This means that these people are currently selling something > for which they have no licence and which they do not have the right > to distribute - in other words, counterfeit software. > Doesn't this mean that they are software pirates? > > Even worse, this means that YOU, when you are buying this > machine with this software, are also using counterfeit software, and > by extension, when using the Q40/Q60, you are also a software > pirate. > > Do you really want to be? > > > Wolfgang Wolfgang, this email of yours is wrong on so many levels. Aside from any legal flaws in your argument, and there are a couple of great big ones, you have a responsibility to handle these issues in a discreet and diplomatic manner. This message is indiscreet, undiplomatic, and certainly libellous. As for the legal arguments, releasing software under a new license does not automatically make that license applicable to all previous or parallel versions. The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. Any such activity is absolutely legal, and your accusation that it is not is not only wrong (due to lack of evidence, not finding of fact) but places you in a very VERY unenviable position. Up until this moment, I have felt you've been working in the best interest of the SMSQ/E community, but having read this very ill-advised post, I can only conclude that you do not posses the diplomacy skills required of a registrar. Accusing others of impropriety without very solid evidence, in such a public forum, is an impropriety in itself. You may be right, but that is hardly the point. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 10:01, Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote: > In that case you can forget what I wrote :-) Although my > assumption IS legally correct (Just looked it up (Cheesman, H. > Business Law, McGraw Hill, NY 2000)) since Peter didn't obtain > permission then D&D in turn doesn't have permission as well... Sure, it's a simple chain of authorization. > However I hope that everything is an honest misunderstanding > (The last thing the QL world needs is problems of this nature) > and let's leave it at that :-). It's up to D&D now. I mean COME ON GUYS. All it takes is an email to me asking to be a reseller, paying 10 EUR for each new copy sold to TT and only selling the official version. IS THAT SO HARD?? > Everybody knows so far that I do distance myself from these > things and I wouldn't want my previous mail to be regarded as > taking sides... To be quite frank, I'm fed up with people doing everything they can not to take sides (if there are sides to be taken). (Sorry Phoebus, this rant is NOT directed against you). I'm imposing this "not taking sides" on myself because, as the Software registrar, I feel a certain duty to remain neutral. Hey, we live in a democracy - if you don't like what I'm saying, just say so (and if you do, too). Heck, if you think D&D are right, say so, and also if you think they are wrong. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 8:46, Phoebus Dokos wrote: > > Wolfgang, > I was under the impression that Peter had acquired (ie paid) the rights to > resell/modify SMSQ/E... Not that I know of > Even it isn't so, I do not believe that D&D would want to "hijack" the > software only that there's an honest misunderstanding somewhere > > I hope :-) I've kept my fingers crossed for so long now that I can't undo them anymore. But I DOUBT. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 10:05, Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote: > Now that's an interesting thought :-). However Bill, that's > (legally) up to the software license. If it doesn't EXPLICITLY > state that for every platform you NEED to have a separate > copy of the software (I haven't read the finalized license in > length but I seem to recall that once you have one legal > version of SMSQ/E you can use the other ones) then a current > SMSQ/E owner doesn't have a problem getting SMSQ/E from > another source... (...) > > (Sounds complicated doesn't it?) Actually, it's pretty much simpler (oufff). No reseller may sell a new copy of the compiled code to you unless he abides by the licencen meaning payment. Thus, if you already have, say QPC, and buy a new one and get a new copy of SMSQ/E with it, you pay again. If you get an upgrade for QPC, you don't pay again. Same thing with the Q60. You buy a new Q60 and get sold a new SMSQ/E, you pay (again). Not so difficult, is it? If you did get a new copy and the reseller didn't abide by the licence, then you have a pirated copy. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 9:36, Bill Cable wrote: > > Wolfgang, > > What if you already own a current legal copy of SMSQ/E in QPC2 or some other > way when you buy a Q40/60 as many already do. Surely you do not have to buy it > twice. > > -- Bill Under the licence you do, because you get an entirely new copy of SMSQ/E -not an upgrade. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi Wolfgang, >> Hey, we live in a democracy - if you don't like what I'm saying, just >> say so (and if you do, too). Indeed we do, so here's my take on it. When your initial email came through, I though 'oh bloody hell, the shit is really going to hit the fan now !'. Why ? Because in a public forum you made quite serious accusations against other parties. Now, whether or not your accusations are true, a public forum is not the place to be making them. I believe you can be held responsible for what you write (say) in an email. (I think Demon got shafted some time back simply because they allowed a usenet posting to remain on their servers after being informed that it was incorrect etc.) So, have you tried to communicate with D&D to find out if what you say is true, or whether they have some other arrangments etc ? If you have asked and not received any replies then there may well be a problem and if so, it should be sorted out between the 'interested' parties and not aired in public. If there does turn out to be a good reason, they you may well end up with egg on your face. I believe you have put yourself is a pretty awkward situation. >> Heck, if you think D&D are right, say so, and also if you think they >> are wrong. If D&D are not paying Tony then they must have a reason for not paying Tony. This brings questions to mind, such as - do they have a separate agreemaent with Tony ? - have they inherited some other agreement with Tony indirectly through any previous dealing between the Grafs and Tony ? - are they possibly saving up a whole pile of payments to Tony and submitting them infrequently rather than EUR10 here and there ? - etc. On the other hand, until all the facts are known, it is best not to make judgement - especially in public. Personally, I think you should have found out, or tried to find out why no payments are/were being made and dealt with the matter through private means. In the event of no success, turned the matter over to Tony - it is his money after all, but putting the details on a public forum was wrong. Regards, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > > Hi all, > > I just wanted to point out something to the general QL world at > large: as you all know, SMSQ/E is being made available publicly, > under a licence that was discussed at length here. > This licence is now the current licence for all versions of SMSQ/E. > > Under this licence, only appointed resellers may sell the software, > provided, notably, that a 10 euro payment is made to Tony Tebby > for each copy sold. > > Today, D&D systems are selling the Q40/Q60. These are > machines that contain SMSQ/E in ROM (they cannot boot > otherwise). > > D&D have NOT even requested to become a software reseller. They > are NOT paying the licence fees. > > This means that these people are currently selling something > for which they have no licence and which they do not have the right > to distribute - in other words, counterfeit software. > Doesn't this mean that they are software pirates? > > Even worse, this means that YOU, when you are buying this > machine with this software, are also using counterfeit software, and > by extension, when using the Q40/Q60, you are also a software > pirate. > > Do you really want to be? > > > Wolfgang I suspect that many of probable Q40i/Q60 purchasers are already owners of SMSQE for one of the various platforms, If I go ahead and purchase a Q60 as an upgrade from Q40 I already own SMSQE for that machine, I also use SMSQE for Aurora and SuperGold Card how many times do you want me to buy it. Considering that the original purchase promised features that have taken years to include and some still not included isn't it time to give a little to user such as I who have parted with money on trust for so many years. C'mon guys it's a hobby and a hobby that includes some nice people, some very clever people, some understanding traders and some very patient users and no pirates that I recall. There are not enough of us left that we should start an us and them war. all the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 5/11/2002 3:07:40 ??, ?/? "Bill Waugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > > >- Original Message - >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:07 AM >Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> I just wanted to point out something to the general QL world at >> large: as you all know, SMSQ/E is being made available publicly, >> under a licence that was discussed at length here. >> This licence is now the current licence for all versions of SMSQ/E. >> >> Under this licence, only appointed resellers may sell the software, >> provided, notably, that a 10 euro payment is made to Tony Tebby >> for each copy sold. >> >> Today, D&D systems are selling the Q40/Q60. These are >> machines that contain SMSQ/E in ROM (they cannot boot >> otherwise). >> >> D&D have NOT even requested to become a software reseller. They >> are NOT paying the licence fees. >> >> This means that these people are currently selling something >> for which they have no licence and which they do not have the right >> to distribute - in other words, counterfeit software. >> Doesn't this mean that they are software pirates? >> >> Even worse, this means that YOU, when you are buying this >> machine with this software, are also using counterfeit software, and >> by extension, when using the Q40/Q60, you are also a software >> pirate. >> >> Do you really want to be? >> >> >> Wolfgang > >I suspect that many of probable Q40i/Q60 purchasers are already owners >of SMSQE for one of the various platforms, If I go ahead and purchase a >Q60 as an upgrade from Q40 I already own SMSQE for that machine, I also >use SMSQE for Aurora and SuperGold Card how many times do you want me to >buy it. >Considering that the original purchase promised features that have taken >years to include and some still not included isn't it time to give a >little to user such as I who have parted with money on trust for so many >years. >C'mon guys it's a hobby and a hobby that includes some nice people, some >very clever people, some understanding traders and some very patient >users and no pirates that I recall. > >There are not enough of us left that we should start an us and them war. > >all the best - Bill > I have to agree with Bill (and Bill Cable) on more than one levels... Apart from what's legal (or not legal), there should be a level of reason among users, vendors and developers. SMSQ/E originally did include upgrades in the price (and that's how I got QPC originally). I do not agree with the term "completely" new operating system because it is not completely new. The fact that some modules change from one platform to the next doesn't mean anything. Totally new means that it does something that wasn't there originally and with the exception of the GD2, as Bill (Waugh) pointed out, everything that wass promised to us was never delivered. Under that assumption SMSQ/E from D&D is indeed an upgrade and not a completely new O/S. Now if TT (or somebody else) shows me an SMSQ/E with meta drivers, memory protection, embeded microGui etc.. .then yes I would consider that a new product but what is now... is not new (maybe better implemented... but most of them were there originally and newer versions just ironed out some bugs)... Now on what's LEGAL, Wolfgang is absolutely right, provided that SMSQ/E is a NEW product which after some thought I don't think it is... just an upgrade... We all have been operating under that assumption else many QPC sales wouldn't be possible right? Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Bill Waugh wrote: > I suspect that many of probable Q40i/Q60 purchasers are already owners > of SMSQE for one of the various platforms, If I go ahead and purchase a > Q60 as an upgrade from Q40 I already own SMSQE for that machine, I also > use SMSQE for Aurora and SuperGold Card how many times do you want me to > buy it. This is not really about money. In fact I'm not sure what's it about. 10EUR is nothing. Therefore I wonder why they're refusing to participate. "Political" reasons? I'm sure nobody, and certainly not Wolfgang, wants such public fights. Fact is that it's known for almost 6 months now that all it takes to sell SMSQ/E is write a mail to Wolfgang and collect 10EUR per copy. I mean, I am busy too, but I succeeded in writing such a mail in that time (and I'm not even really selling it). I have gathered that Wolfgang tried to communicate in private for months now (disregarding the fact that it's not his job to contact them, it's the other way round). What else is he supposed to do than going public at some point? The whole affair is unbelievable sad and pointless. And all it takes to end it is one bloody mail. Regarding the point that they might have another treaty with Tony outside of the licence: if that's the case Tony doesn't seem to know about it. Perhaps they should remind him them. I'm sorry I even had to write this. Cheers to all, Marcel
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 5/11/2002 12:23:18 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > > > >On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I just wanted to point out something to the general QL world at >> large: as you all know, SMSQ/E is being made available publicly, >> under a licence that was discussed at length here. >> This licence is now the current licence for all versions of SMSQ/E. >> >> Under this licence, only appointed resellers may sell the software, >> provided, notably, that a 10 euro payment is made to Tony Tebby >> for each copy sold. >> >> Today, D&D systems are selling the Q40/Q60. These are >> machines that contain SMSQ/E in ROM (they cannot boot >> otherwise). >> >> D&D have NOT even requested to become a software reseller. They >> are NOT paying the licence fees. >> >> This means that these people are currently selling something >> for which they have no licence and which they do not have the right >> to distribute - in other words, counterfeit software. >> Doesn't this mean that they are software pirates? >> >> Even worse, this means that YOU, when you are buying this >> machine with this software, are also using counterfeit software, and >> by extension, when using the Q40/Q60, you are also a software >> pirate. >> >> Do you really want to be? >> >> >> Wolfgang > >Wolfgang, this email of yours is wrong on so many levels. > >Aside from any legal flaws in your argument, and there are a couple of >great big ones, you have a responsibility to handle these issues in a >discreet and diplomatic manner. This message is indiscreet, undiplomatic, >and certainly libellous. > >As for the legal arguments, releasing software under a new license does >not automatically make that license applicable to all previous or parallel >versions. The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to sell many >copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or agreement not >relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. Any such activity is >absolutely legal, and your accusation that it is not is not only wrong >(due to lack of evidence, not finding of fact) but places you in a very >VERY unenviable position. > >Up until this moment, I have felt you've been working in the best interest >of the SMSQ/E community, but having read this very ill- advised post, I can >only conclude that you do not posses the diplomacy skills required of a >registrar. > >Accusing others of impropriety without very solid evidence, in such a >public forum, is an impropriety in itself. > >You may be right, but that is hardly the point. > >Dave > > >
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 5/11/2002 12:23:18 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: After careful consideration and drawing on my own experience on "skirmishes" on Ql-Users (everybody probably remembers the huge misunderstanding between me and Richard Z. in which I grossly misunderstood him and a very bad reaction - mostly erroneous and out of context on my part- ensued), I have to say the following to conclude the matter: 1. It is indeed not very constructive to deal with matter of this nature publicly but only as a very last resort (As I don't =obviously= know all the facts behind Wolfgang's post I will not comment further) 2. What's "legal" and what's "fair use" are terms that are and will be subject to debate on this list as well as elsewhere on different platforms. My original comments were on the "letter of the law". Please note that I do not and will not agree to the SMSQ/E license as it is now (However it's my personal decision to enforce it, I see it as something like the drinking age limit in the US... it's a failed concept but it's the law...). 3. I and I believe others up until now were under the impression that according to our original "terms of purchase" we were entitled to free upgrades. That was the idea behind QPC (where the price for an update covered mainly Marcel's work... the fact that part of this work was done on SMSQ/E to bring it to up to par with QPC it's totally irrelevant to the OS itself and very relevant to what Marcel charges). 4. For D&D (as both Dave and Bill said) we cannot really say what really goes on until either D. or D. (sic!) say their side of their story (as it's only fair :-). However did anybody ever consider that this is not a CD we're talking about here but an EPROM which needs to be burned and then tested? Do they have to provide that for free too according to the SMSQ/E license? My personal opinion is that they shouldn't... it's not the same thing as copying a CD (which as we said -Dave as well as me and others when the original license was discussed-) should be allowed to be copied by PD libraries and even (why not) a very small fee charged for all their trouble, shipping etc... That hardly has ANYTHING to do with the distribution of SMSQ/E and I think that everyone would agree that the pursuit of a hobby, doesn't mean you need to blow your money away... (Some people ie. me don't have that much and the fact that we do love the platform doesn't mean we need to lose money on it... For example if I ran a PD library service (which I do in some form) and I provide SMSQ/E I should be able to charge something for the lost time and effort. Additionally, having to send my SMSQ/E version back to the registrar so my buddy that wants to check it out (even if no intention to incorporate the changes back to the original version exists) (since no CVS in the usual form exists) is hindering development than encouraging it. 5. Finally, the fact that TT did choose (IIRC again, don't shoot if I am wrong) not to make any money out of SMSQ/E any more but in that meeting you all had, decided to have him re- imbursed despite his original intentions to me at least means that he wasn't interested in getting anything more out of it. Don't get me wrong, I think it's brilliantly designed and as long as it was actively developed by him I had no problem paying for it, however now I don't really see why I should? Especially since the rest of the people that do develop it do not... That's all, in VERY good faith, Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
"Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò" wrote: [Quote cut] BTW: You're quoting in this mail was horrible. OE used to be the only program that output those non-readable mails, pity Opera seems to do the same. > Apart from what's legal (or not legal), there should be a level > of reason among users, vendors and developers. SMSQ/E > originally did include upgrades in the price (and that's how I > got QPC originally). Reducing the price for people that already own SMSQ/E was a service from us to the customers, not a necessity. And please not forget that it's only 10 EUR we're talking about. AND that they are specifically charging more than that (10 pounds) for SMSQ/E. > Now if TT (or somebody else) shows me an SMSQ/E with meta drivers, > memory protection, embeded microGui etc.. Nothing of that was promised. Most platforms don't even have memory protection, besides that fact that many almost all QL software rely on the fact that there is none. > Now on what's LEGAL, Wolfgang is absolutely right, provided > that SMSQ/E is a NEW product which after some thought I > don't think it is... just an upgrade... We all have been > operating under that assumption else many QPC sales > wouldn't be possible right? Wrong. Under the new licence 10 EUR are paid for every new QPC sold, whether the owner has already SMSQ/E or not. Upgrades from older versions of course don't include the fee. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > So, have you tried to communicate with D&D to find out if what you say is > true, or whether they have some other arrangments etc ? > If you have asked and not received any replies then there may well be a > problem and if so, it should be sorted out between the 'interested' parties > and not aired in public. If there does turn out to be a good reason, they > you may well end up with egg on your face. I believe you have put yourself > is a pretty awkward situation. > In fairness to Wolfgang let it be said that this is not a new problem. I have known about it for some weeks, and you can be certain that a lot of activity has gone on in the background to try to resolve the situation. One of the problems is that most QL traders find they often do not get replies to emails to D & D. This is not just over such things as SMSQ, but also emailings for QL shows. Some time ago D & D approached me about distributing some Just Words! programs with the Q60. I gave a fairly lengthy reply but never heard anything further. This I find unbusinesslike and discourteous. Let me add that I write this with the greatest of reluctance. I have known one half of D & D, Dennis Smith, for some years and have always valued his observations on my programs. The Q60 is the most exciting hardware development in recent years, and from what I have heard D & D are producing it to the highest standards. I wish them well. Surely an extra 10 Euros per machine is not much to ask? Geoff Wicks
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 5/11/2002 4:28:03 ??, ?/? Marcel Kilgus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > >"Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò" wrote: > >[Quote cut] >BTW: You're quoting in this mail was horrible. OE used to be the only >program that output those non-readable mails, pity Opera seems to do >the same. > My mistake, I set up Opera to word wrap at 60 columns and forgot to switch it back (:-) >> Apart from what's legal (or not legal), there should be a level >> of reason among users, vendors and developers. SMSQ/E >> originally did include upgrades in the price (and that's how I >> got QPC originally). > >Reducing the price for people that already own SMSQ/E was a service >from us to the customers, not a necessity. > I never said it was a necessity Marcel :-) It was however a fact.. and people get used to those regardless on what's the "right thing"... As I said to my mail what's legal and what's not it wasn't my intention to point out... I was expressing my opinion... As I said in a different part of my email, the fact that I don't agree with something, doesn't mean that I will not abide by it :-) (Just so we're clear :-) >And please not forget that it's only 10 EUR we're talking about. AND >that they are specifically charging more than that (10 pounds) for >SMSQ/E. I do not know the specifics, I just offered my opinion in an effort to avoid more words that could be said... As I said before misunderstandings and fights have very bad results and I wouldn't want to see anything bad happenning if we can avoid it :-) > >> Now if TT (or somebody else) shows me an SMSQ/E with meta drivers, >> memory protection, embeded microGui etc.. > >Nothing of that was promised. Most platforms don't even have memory >protection, besides that fact that many almost all QL software rely on >the fact that there is none. I never said that THAT was promised, I said that THESE features would qualify as a completely new product :-) Features like background I/O were promised at one point or another :-) > >> Now on what's LEGAL, Wolfgang is absolutely right, provided >> that SMSQ/E is a NEW product which after some thought I >> don't think it is... just an upgrade... We all have been >> operating under that assumption else many QPC sales >> wouldn't be possible right? > >Wrong. Under the new licence 10 EUR are paid for every new QPC sold, >whether the owner has already SMSQ/E or not. Upgrades from older >versions of course don't include the fee. That's why I asked :-) 10 Euros isn't a great fee, that's true... I was just challenging the principle of it... Again, that doesn't mean that I will try to avoid paying the amount... But I do have every right to disagree with it. Nobody likes ALL the laws in his country right? That one person might even think a law or regulation is utterly stupid... That doesn't mean that that person will become a criminal :-) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
And a final thought that I want to make ABSOLUTELY clear. What everyone wants to do with HIS software is his own business. I have software that I give away for free and software that I charge 's for. I do prefer free and open software because it allows me to pursue my hobbies, but if there's no other way I do prefer OPEN software at a fee than free software that's closed :-) And in all fairness, indeed 10 EUR doesn't even begin to compare with the hundreds a M$ piece of junk costs... although sometime I have no other way than to pay it (ie Visual Studio.NET... $968 ouch!) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
"Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò" wrote: > My mistake, I set up Opera to word wrap at 60 columns and forgot to switch it back >(:-) Even then it shouldn't break quotes. Typical OE bug. Now your lines are BTW much too long. > I do not know the specifics, I just offered my opinion in an effort > to avoid more words that could be said... As I said before > misunderstandings and fights have very bad results and I wouldn't > want to see anything bad happenning if we can avoid it :-) ACK. > I never said that THAT was promised, I said that THESE features > would qualify as a completely new product :-) OK, understood :) > Features like background I/O were promised at one point or another > :-) True. > That's why I asked :-) 10 Euros isn't a great fee, that's true... I > was just challenging the principle of it... It was not my idea but I also didn't disagree. Look at the sources when you get them. An unbelievable big amount of work has gone into it. As far as I know Tony didn't earn anything near the amount of money his work was worth. Therefore the idea that he still gets some minor money, just as a little appreciation. Please also keep in mind that Tony didn't have to give everything away. If he hadn't SMSQ/E would still cost serious money and he would get much more out of each sale. > But I do have every right to disagree with it. Of course. Nobody denied that ;) Marcel
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > > Hi all, > > I just wanted to point out something to the general QL world at > large: as you all know, SMSQ/E is being made available publicly, > under a licence that was discussed at length here. > This licence is now the current licence for all versions of SMSQ/E. > > Under this licence, only appointed resellers may sell the software, > provided, notably, that a 10 euro payment is made to Tony Tebby > for each copy sold. > > Today, D&D systems are selling the Q40/Q60. These are > machines that contain SMSQ/E in ROM (they cannot boot > otherwise). > > D&D have NOT even requested to become a software reseller. They > are NOT paying the licence fees. > > This means that these people are currently selling something > for which they have no licence and which they do not have the right > to distribute - in other words, counterfeit software. > Doesn't this mean that they are software pirates? > > Even worse, this means that YOU, when you are buying this > machine with this software, are also using counterfeit software, and > by extension, when using the Q40/Q60, you are also a software > pirate. > > Do you really want to be? > > > Wolfgang Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this contact or is this above the contact he means? Licence money has been paid. I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. > (Q60) These are machines that contain SMSQ/E in ROM (they cannot boot > otherwise). We have sold machines that do not have SMSQ/E - they boot into QDOS Classic instead but then you already know that fact?? Etc. etc. etc. this is stupid. Has Wolfgang had a tap on the head recently? (a great cure for water on the brain as it happens). Do you, Wolfgang, still intend to send this mystery email to me? If not why not? Wolfgang, more like WolfGANGSTER, menacingly demanding money without an invoice. Watch out, this Wolfgangster bloke's a nutter :-))) Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes Wolfgang, I was under the impression that Peter had acquired (ie paid) the rights to resell/modify SMSQ/E... Since D&D systems act as his agents under British (and American) Common law (which not only gives them liability but also benefits), they are entitled to distribute SMSQ/E legally. They do not have the right to sell if for any other system but only for the Qx0 of course. All this of course is true provided that Peter DOES carry the right to modify/resell/develop SMSQ/E (which I believe is true). I have stayed out of this although I have been a witness to the agony that Wolfgang went through before posting his mail. I know for an absolute fact that he has tried to contact D&D over several weeks about this issue and tried to solve the problem with any recourse to this list. I also know that D&D knew of the problem because Tony Firshman contacted them about it a while ago. Wolfgang has behaved in an honourable and restrained way about the whole affair. The crux of the matter to many of us is the sentence: 'All this of course is true provided that Peter DOES carry the right to modify/resell/develop SMSQ/E (which I believe is true)'. The whole point of the licence was to stop people modifying the code without some central controlling authority - which would be Wolfgang. Already he has been sidelined by this. While you all fret about the 10 Euros the real disservice is to modify the code and not say how. This could cause, in the end, major problems with existing software and this is the major reason why the licence exists. Although the 10 Euros was agreed as a thank you to TT after years of dedicated service we also wanted the code to remain controlled and Jochen and I did not want to have to state that the software we sold was not guaranteed to work on any of the Qxx systems. This is the situation we have if we allow the continued sale of unlicensed code. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Geoff Wicks writes: > In fairness to Wolfgang let it be said that this is not a new problem. I > have known about it for some weeks, and you can be certain that a lot of > activity has gone on in the background to try to resolve the situation. That is also my understanding. <> > Surely an extra 10 Euros per machine is not much to ask? I doubt it has anything to do with the 10 Euros. The whole point of the license is not to milk the punter for more dosh but rather to unify any future developments. Instead of biting the bullet and trying to make the best of an imperfect arrangement by working with the license from the inside, it appears we may have a rebel camp that is hell-bound on doing what it pleases whatever anyone else may think. Isnt that what its all about? The license is an attempt to embody the wishes of the original author, Tony Tebby which, as far as I am aware, he is perfectly entitled to do, legally and morally. If we dont like the terms of the license we are perfectly free to use the systems we already have a license for, move over to a system with a license more congenial to our way of thinking or take up plane-spotting instead. The last thing we need, Im sure everyone agrees, is a new destructive split. If we have one now is not Wolfgang's fault. Hes just doing his job. The way to resolve this quickly is for the dissenters to think things carefully through and either clarify their position, put their affairs in order, or withdraw from the field. Per
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
?? ?. ?? writes: > Features like background I/O were promised at one point or another :-) At extra cost, I seem to remember. Per
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Roy Wood wrote: > The whole point of the licence was to stop people modifying the code > without some central controlling authority - which would be Wolfgang. And the question is "Is Wolfgang able to treat D&D fairly in light of his sense that they are seemingly ignoring his perceived authority?" > Already he has been sidelined by this. Which is what was expected to happen. The license, while I accept it entirely, isn't one that can effectively discourage this. The problem is that Wolfgang expects the D&D sales to result in a payment to him of 10 Euros per copy sold, but he doesn't know how many licenses they already have unsold, so there is no simple resolution without facts. I do think it is vital to have someone keep the different versions of SMSQ/E in step, and I think Wolfgang is technically capable. My worry is that this action has polarised and marginalised D&D into a position where they will feel unwilling to co-operate with him. Now, words will fly, and indignation will be expressed since we're talking about a world market for maybe 100 copies of SMSQ/E over the coming years, it's not going to be sued over, and the enforcer has no teeth. So it's academic. What's the way forward from here? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 3:46, Dave P wrote: > And the question is "Is Wolfgang able to treat D&D fairly in light of > his sense that they are seemingly ignoring his perceived authority?" This something I cannot let by. There are always two sides to a authority - a moral and and a legal one. One has a "moral" authority when the situation is such that people want to abide by whatever decision is taken by you. I have no illusions in this respect - some people have gone clearly on record (e.g. Richard Zidlicky) to tell that they do not feel that I have such an authority. I can perfectly live with that. It also means that, in the eyes of these people I certainly don't have a "perceived" (nice turn of phrase, that) authority. The other is a legal authority, where a situation exists that you cannot do something (legally) without someone's authorization. Taking things out of a shop, for example - you may only do that if the shop owner agrees. It so happens that I am vested with that kind of authority, since TT delegated to me the power to receive requestes from resellers and see to it that official versions of SMSQ/E come from me. Now, as to the question of whether I am able to treat them fairly after they have seemingly ignored my "percevied" authority. The problem here is that they ignored the licence holder's legal rights. And they ignored my attempts to find you whether they are really ignoring this. Am I still able to treat them fairly? I hope so. I also must go on record to say that I think that I treated them fairly until now. What I can undertake (instead of expressing hopes) is that, if they ask to become a reseller, this will be examined in just the way as I described in many an earlier email. If they become a reseller, they WILL get official versions of SMSQ/E from me. Is that fair enough? > Which is what was expected to happen. The license, while I accept it > entirely, isn't one that can effectively discourage this. No licence can discourage people not to violate it. Look at M$ - they have about the most strict licences in the world, and still their software is pirated in the millions. What happened here, is that people were actually given a say in the matter, i.e. the drafting of the licence - and then, not satisfied at not having got what they wanted, they decided to boycott everything. This, at least is the way I perceive things. > The problem is that Wolfgang expects the D&D sales to result in a > payment to him of 10 Euros per copy sold, No, not to me, but to TT - I just pass the money over. > but he doesn't know how many > licenses they already have unsold, so there is no simple resolution > without facts. "unsold" :-))) as to the rest: yes, this is entirely true - BUT the presumption is that D&D have sold Q60s with SMSQ/E - after all, this is the way the machine has always been sold. If only they had simply told me - "we have not sold one single machine with SMSQ/E". > I do think it is vital to have someone keep the different versions of > SMSQ/E in step, and I think Wolfgang is technically capable. Thanks fo the "technically" > My worry > is that this action has polarised and marginalised D&D into a position > where they will feel unwilling to co-operate with him. Excuse me, but what cooperation? D&D and I don't HAVE TO cooperate (even though, still, I'd like to - let me go on record for this!). If D&D sell SMSQ/E as an official reseller, they will get the official versions from me. That's all the cooperation we HAVE to have and that's a cooperation I can guarantee from my side. Of course, I would prefer them telling me what more they expect of SMSQ/E, where they would like to make changes etc... If that doesn't happen, it's NOT because I'm not listening. > Now, words will fly, and indignation will be expressed since we're > talking about a world market for maybe 100 copies of SMSQ/E over the > coming years, it's not going to be sued over, and the enforcer has no > teeth. That also depends on the buyers of SMSQ/E. I for one, would not have bought a Q60 under these circumstances. If you do, knowing that you are using a pirated copy of an OS and that the people gining it to you had not right to do so, then that's your decision. > So it's academic. THAT we'll see. > What's the way forward from here? Good question. Other than suing them, I don't have a ready-made answer. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 20:07, Bill Waugh wrote: (...) > There are not enough of us left that we should start an us and them > war. It's true that we are a small cmmunity. But surely that doesn't mean that people should be behaving in an improper manner.? Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 23:20, dndsystems1 wrote: > Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a > year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed > to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this > contact or is this above the contact he means? Ahh, at last a reaction. Just for the record, this is a blatant lie. I have contacted YOU on "dndsystems1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in this matter. I have contatced DEREK on the email he GAVE me for correspondence on this matter. You have had a copy of this email for a week on this. If you want to deny this, that's fine by me. > Licence money has been paid. TO WHOM? WHEN? >I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to > me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. Hmm, that's NOT what Tony said to me. > > We have sold machines that do not have SMSQ/E - they boot into QDOS > Classic instead but then you already know that fact?? On ROM? > Etc. etc. etc. this is stupid. Has Wolfgang had a tap on the head > recently? (a great cure for water on the brain as it happens). Just address this matter, irony I can do without. > Do you, Wolfgang, still intend to send this mystery email to me? No. > If not why not? Oh, for various reasons. First of all, I don't send out 'mystery emails'. Second, Derek ACKNOWLEDGED to me that he had received my prior email which did contain a copy of the message I intend(ed) to send to this list. If you two aren't speaking to each other, that's NOT my concern. Both of you are acting for D&D. Third, it is up to you to request to become a reseller. If you don't,n you are at fault. Despite that, I DID TAKE the initiative to contact you. You know what your reaction was, i.e. none. > Wolfgang, more like WolfGANGSTER, menacingly demanding money without > an invoice. Watch out, this Wolfgangster bloke's a nutter :-))) . If you sell SMSQ/E without a licence you are breaking the law - not me as you are trying to make out. Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 17:28, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > Indeed we do, so here's my take on it. Good! > When your initial email came through, I though 'oh bloody hell, the > shit is really going to hit the fan now !'. Why ? Because in a public > forum you made quite serious accusations against other parties. Now, > whether or not your accusations are true, a public forum is not the > place to be making them. Actually I agree. And since this seems to be such an important point for many people here, I'll break one of my rules and tell you that I had sent copy of this email to D&D .. ONE WEEK AGO already. > I believe you can be held responsible for > what you write (say) in an email. (I think Demon got shafted some time > back simply because they allowed a usenet posting to remain on their > servers after being informed that it was incorrect etc.) I'l quite willing to be held repsonsible for the question I asked. > So, have you tried to communicate with D&D to find out if what you say > is true, or whether they have some other arrangments etc ? YES! > If you have > asked and not received any replies then there may well be a problem > and if so, it should be sorted out between the 'interested' parties > and not aired in public. If there does turn out to be a good reason, > they you may well end up with egg on your face. I believe you have put > yourself is a pretty awkward situation. Again, OK. > > > >> Heck, if you think D&D are right, say so, and also if you think > >> they are wrong. > > If D&D are not paying Tony then they must have a reason for not paying > Tony. This brings questions to mind, such as > > - do they have a separate agreemaent with Tony ? No, they don't. > - have they inherited some other agreement with Tony indirectly > through any previous dealing between the Grafs and Tony ? - are they > possibly saving up a whole pile of payments to Tony and submitting > them infrequently rather than EUR10 here and there ? - etc. The fact is, that all of this could and should have been discussed between them and me (or even them and TT previously. That hasn't been the case, not because I wasn't trying. > On the other hand, until all the facts are known, it is best not to > make judgement - especially in public. You know, what I actually would like best, would be to be proven wrong. I can live with then having egg all over my face. > Personally, I think you should have found out, or tried to find out > why no payments are/were being made and dealt with the matter through > private means. In the event of no success, turned the matter over to > Tony - it is his money after all, but putting the details on a public > forum was wrong. I did and I did and I still believe it wasn't. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 17:23, Dave P wrote: > Wolfgang, this email of yours is wrong on so many levels. > > Aside from any legal flaws in your argument, and there are a couple of > great big ones, you have a responsibility to handle these issues in a > discreet and diplomatic manner. This message is indiscreet, > undiplomatic, and certainly libellous. Indiscreet, undiplomatic - yes. Just DON'T assume that I haven't tried to settle this previously in a discreet and diplomatic way. > As for the legal arguments, releasing software under a new license > does not automatically make that license applicable to all previous or > parallel versions. That depends on the previous licence, doesn't it? > The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to > sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or > agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. MAY ? Do they? > Any such > activity is absolutely legal, and your accusation that it is not is > not only wrong (due to lack of evidence, not finding of fact) but > places you in a very VERY unenviable position. I'm getting used to being in that position. > Up until this moment, I have felt you've been working in the best > interest of the SMSQ/E community, but having read this very > ill-advised post, I can only conclude that you do not posses the > diplomacy skills required of a registrar. OK, that's your point of view. > Accusing others of impropriety without very solid evidence, in such a > public forum, is an impropriety in itself. On the other hand, it may be the only way of getting a response that MAYBE shows me that I have been wrong. > You may be right, but that is hardly the point. Oh, but it is. The problem is that, right now, I'm NOT concerned with 'The Grafs' as you put it. I have no idea how "the Grafs" are involved in this. All I see is that d&d are selling the Q60, without a licence. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 16:13, Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote: > 3. I and I believe > others up until now were under the impression that according to our > original "terms of purchase" we were entitled to free upgrades. That hasn't changed, has it? > That > was the idea behind QPC (where the price for an update covered mainly > Marcel's work... the fact that part of this work was done on SMSQ/E to > bring it to up to par with QPC it's totally irrelevant to the OS > itself and very relevant to what Marcel charges). To be fair, though, you could also get free upgrades for SMSQ/E on the Q60. 4. For D&D (as both > Dave and Bill said) we cannot really say what really goes on until > either D. or D. (sic!) say their side of their story (as it's only > fair :-). Yes, of course it is. > However did anybody ever consider that this is not a CD > we're talking about here but an EPROM which needs to be burned and > then tested? That doesn't change anything, does it? > Do they have to provide that for free too according to > the SMSQ/E license? Are you suggesteing that they are selling the Q60 with untested software and that the user gets a test version? > My personal opinion is that they shouldn't... it's > not the same thing as copying a CD (which as we said -Dave as well as > me and others when the original license was discussed-) should be > allowed to be copied by PD libraries and even (why not) a very small > fee charged for all their trouble, shipping etc... Just let's clarify the debate and distinguish, as the licence does, between source code and compiled code. For source code, what does the licence say? quote: Any person may distribute the source code to others, provided however that the following conditions are adhered to by the person thus distributing the source : - Such a distribution must be made entirely free of charge - no fees whatsoever, for copying or the media on which the software is copied or otherwise, may be levied. The distribution of the source code must contain a copy of this licence and a clear indication that this licence must be read and agreed upon by the recipient before using the source code. - Such a distribution may only be made in either of two forms: Via a CDROM or via Email. · Via CDROM Exceptionally and only if distribution is made via CDROM, the person distributing the source code may request 3 IRCs and a blank CDROM from the recipient. All of the software, including the documentation and this licence must be distributed on the CDROM. ... unquote. That DOESN'T stop you from sending the source out to anybody, does it? As to binary, or compiled code, that may only be distributed (sold!) through resellers. > That hardly has > ANYTHING to do with the distribution of SMSQ/E and I think that > everyone would agree that the pursuit of a hobby, doesn't mean you > need to blow your money away... OK 10 EUR per new copy is blowing you money away. Then, of course, you will NEVER buy a Q40, because that costs so much more... > (Some people ie. me don't have that > much and the fact that we do love the platform doesn't mean we need to > lose money on it... For example if I ran a PD library service (which I > do in some form) and I provide SMSQ/E I should be able to charge > something for the lost time and effort. Yes, 3 IRCs. > Additionally, having to send > my SMSQ/E version back to the registrar so my buddy that wants to > check it out (even if no intention to incorporate the changes back to > the original version exists) (since no CVS in the usual form exists) > is hindering development than encouraging it. Sorry, let me again quote the licence to you quote As an exception to the prohibition of distribution of binary versions of the software other than through the resellers, you are hereby granted the right to distribute binary versions of the software to a maximum of 10 different persons (whatever the number and moment in time of the changes/additions/modifications you make), provided however that: (a) you have made a change/addition/modification to the software compared to the official version and (b) the person receiving the software from you undertakes to destroy the binary version - after 2 months of receipt thereof, - as soon as you inform such person that the version is no longer a test version but a final version, - as soon as any such change has been submitted to the registrar and accepted by him for inclusion in the official version whatever comes first. The person receiving the binaries from you must also undertake not to distribute binary versions to anybody else except yourself- , even if he/she did make any change/addition/modification to the code. Even if you make several changes/additions/modifications to the software, you may only distribute test versions to the same 10 persons maximum. unquote 5. Finally, the fact > that TT did choose (IIRC again, don't shoot if I am wrong) not to make > any money out of SMSQ/E any more but in that meeting you a
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 2:25, P Witte wrote: > (...) it appears we may have a > rebel camp that is hell-bound on doing what it pleases whatever anyone > else may think. Isnt that what its all about? I fear that it is, though, perhaps not even directly from D&D. As to the rest of Per's message, I couldn't agree more. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 15:47, Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote: > I have to agree with Bill (and Bill Cable) on more than one > levels... > > Apart from what's legal (or not legal), there should be a level > of reason among users, vendors and developers. Oh yes, please! > Totally new means that it does > something that wasn't there originally and with the exception > of the GD2, as Bill (Waugh) pointed out, everything that wass > promised to us was never delivered. Hmm, I must have been living in another world. I did not but an OS whereby, at the time of purchase, I was promised that I would get more features for free. Oh, there was talk that several things lmight be incorporated into the OS in the future, but I have NEVER has a promise from TT in that respect. The ONLY time he promised something was when he got paid to do the colour drivers for the QXL. He promised he'd do them, and he delivered - in the process also doing them for Q60 (and QPC in part). > Under that assumption > SMSQ/E from D&D is indeed an upgrade and not a completely > new O/S. Wrong -not if you buy it in a new machine. > Now if TT (or somebody else) shows me an SMSQ/E > with meta drivers, memory protection, embeded microGui etc.. > .then yes I would consider that a new product but what is > now... is not new (maybe better implemented... but most of > them were there originally and newer versions just ironed out > some bugs)... > > > Now on what's LEGAL, Wolfgang is absolutely right, provided > that SMSQ/E is a NEW product which after some thought I > don't think it is... just an upgrade... We all have been > operating under that assumption else many QPC sales > wouldn't be possible right? > No, that's just not true. Moreover, if you buy two copies of QPC and get sold two SMSQ/E to go with them, TT will get money twice. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 5 Nov 2002, at 16:59, Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote: > I never said that THAT was promised, I said that THESE features would > qualify as a completely new product :-) Features like background I/O > were promised at one point or another :-) By whom? > That's why I asked :-) 10 Euros isn't a great fee, that's true... I > was just challenging the principle of it... Right, so let's put the amount aside for a moment and talk about the principle of it. Let's presume you have a Q60. You ask D&D to supply you a new version of SMSQ/E (on ROM or disk, doesn't matter). Under the licence, D&D is NOT obliged to charge for it. Now you buy a second Q60. You get a new copy of SMSQ/E and you MUST pay for it. You object to that because you already have a copy of SMSQ/E and should not pay for the ne one? Alright, then you surely also expect to get the second Q60 for free, after all you already have one. Let's also assume, for the sake of argument that smsq/e for QPC & Q60 were totally the same, and that you already had a Q60. When yu but QPC you get a new version of SMSQ/E and pay for it. > Again, that doesn't mean > that I will try to avoid paying the amount... But I do have every > right to disagree with it. You have the right to disagree with everything, but I think that your position would not be the correct one. Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Morning Wolfgang, ok, I accept all your points that you DID attempt to contact D&D for information, advice, etc - it would have been better, IMHO, if you had said that in your original email. Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wlenerz@;free.fr] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? On 5 Nov 2002, at 17:28, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > Indeed we do, so here's my take on it. Good! > When your initial email came through, I though 'oh bloody hell, the > shit is really going to hit the fan now !'. Why ? Because in a public > forum you made quite serious accusations against other parties. Now, > whether or not your accusations are true, a public forum is not the > place to be making them. Actually I agree. And since this seems to be such an important point for many people here, I'll break one of my rules and tell you that I had sent copy of this email to D&D .. ONE WEEK AGO already. This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi Geoff, >> In fairness to Wolfgang let it be said that this is not a new problem. I >> have known about it for some weeks, and you can be certain that a lot of >> activity has gone on in the background to try to resolve the situation. It seems that a certian number of people knew about the problem, while the rest of us didn't. It was therefore quite easy to assume that nothing had been done etc, because Wolfgang didn't mention anyhting in his original email. >> Some time ago D & D approached me about distributing some Just Words! >> programs with the Q60. I gave a fairly lengthy reply but never heard >> anything further. This I find unbusinesslike and discourteous. I do believe I read about your feeling on this matter in QL TOADY ! Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Morning Dennis, now that you have responded, is there any chance that a meaningful exchange of information can take place beteween yourselves (D&D) and Wolfgang to sort out the problem withour further recousrse to name calling and public accusations ? You say no-one has contacted you. Wolfgang et al say differently. You say you have paid TT and Wolfgans says TT says not. Someone somewhere is not communicating ! Please get it all sorted out before we have another flame fest on the list. Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: dndsystems1 [mailto:dndsystems1@;supanet.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this contact or is this above the contact he means? Licence money has been paid. I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 9:47, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > Morning Dennis, > > now that you have responded, is there any chance that a meaningful > exchange of information can take place beteween yourselves (D&D) and > Wolfgang to sort out the problem withour further recousrse to name > calling and public accusations ? > > You say no-one has contacted you. Ah, it is true that I did not contact Dennis Personally - I contacted D&D and later Derek. Does this change anything? > Wolfgang et al say differently. > You say you have paid TT and Wolfgans says TT says not. Dennis, if you HAVE paid TT, could you please, please, please tell me so (even privately if you wish), especially when & how? > > Someone somewhere is not communicating ! Let's still give it the benefit of doubt. > Please get it all sorted out before we have another flame fest on the > list. I'm all for it! Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 9:38, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > Morning Wolfgang, > > ok, I accept all your points that you DID attempt to contact D&D for > information, advice, etc - it would have been better, IMHO, if you had > said that in your original email. Thanks. Yes, perhaps I should have said that. I just presumed the everybody would assume that I would not send out a message like that on this list without trying to contact D&D beforehand. Wrong presumption, my fault. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: > Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a > year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed > to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this > contact or is this above the contact he means? Excuse me for pointing out the flaw in this, but if you were aware that Wolfgang, Tony and Derek agreed to communicate about this issue, you have just admitted there was prior communication and that you (the company) were aware of this issue. > Licence money has been paid. I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to > me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. This is a private business matter, but for the sake of transparency and defusing the serious allegation, would you care to outline to the group what arrangement you have made? > Wolfgang, more like WolfGANGSTER, menacingly demanding money without > an invoice. Watch out, this Wolfgangster bloke's a nutter :-))) Dennis, please use this opportunity to take the high ground, not fight to see who can get lowest in the gutter? ;o) That's my job! ;P Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Just DON'T assume that I haven't tried to settle this previously in a > discreet and diplomatic way. Dude! :o) Ok, so this was a mistep because you got the wrong tone, even if the message was right. There is now public awareness of the ambiguity of D&D's license position. Chances are that they ARE ripping off SMSQ/E, but it's still a very strong allegation without some lighter questioning first, even if you had reached a point of going public. > > The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to > > sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or > > agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. > MAY ? > Do they? I don't know, and nor do you. Only D&D can clear up the situation. > > You may be right, but that is hardly the point. > > Oh, but it is. > The problem is that, right now, I'm NOT concerned with 'The Grafs' > as you put it. > I have no idea how "the Grafs" are involved in this. All I see is that > d&d are selling the Q60, without a licence. My mistake. I think of "The Grafs" as the originator oif the rather spiffy Q60, which is made by D&D. No doubt, the Graffs had an arrangement for SMSQ/E which they may have transferred or sublicensed to D&D to make quite lawfully. We do not know. Unfortunately, knowing may be very destructive, as knowing the license fees paid means knowing exactly what D&D's sales are, and therefore what production is, and if you knew how few units they may have sold, the scene may become even more disheartened than it already is. It's not the message, it's the voice. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have no illusions in this respect - some people have gone clearly > on record (e.g. Richard Zidlicky) to tell that they do not feel that I > have such an authority. I can perfectly live with that. It also means > that, in the eyes of these people I certainly don't have a "perceived" > (nice turn of phrase, that) authority. I feel you do have authority. You're TT's representative in this matter. > What happened here, is that people were actually given a say in > the matter, i.e. the drafting of the licence - and then, not satisfied > at not having got what they wanted, they decided to boycott > everything. The person who drew up the license had a predefined requirement list which was inflexible - all flexibility occured only in unimportant areas. The important areas over which there was so much contention were decided by the dealers, in the interest of the dealers, before the users were even consulted. Granted, this is a gross simplification, but that's how it looks. Now, clearly, the dealers in question are highly considered and very capable people doing this for love, which makes it palatable. > the presumption is that D&D have sold Q60s with SMSQ/E - after > all, this is the way the machine has always been sold. > If only they had simply told me - "we have not sold one single > machine with SMSQ/E". How do you know that they weren't sitting on a stock of 25 pre-blown EPROMS and have been nibbling away at these with sales, and would have made appropriate arrangements when this got down to 2 or 3 EPROMS? This is pure conjecture. Again, only D&D can clarify this. > Thanks fo the "technically" As I said previously, I hold your technical skills in highest regard. > Excuse me, but what cooperation? D&D and I don't HAVE TO > cooperate (even though, still, I'd like to - let me go on record for > this!). > That also depends on the buyers of SMSQ/E. I for one, would not > have bought a Q60 under these circumstances. If you do, knowing > that you are using a pirated copy of an OS and that the people > gining it to you had not right to do so, then that's your decision. This license creates so many grey areas. For example, I have a QXL card, but no OS, yet one was originally supplied with it. Do I have to buy another copy of SMSQ? If I buy QPC do I have to pay for yet another full copy of SMSQ or can I just pay the extra 10 Euros for each additional version? [1] Bopttom line, maybe D&D are trying to get something for nothing. I hope not, but the suspicion remains and I'll veto my Q60 purchase (which is some way off anyway) until this issue is resolved and license fees are shown to have been paid. Dave [1] I still haven't successfully paid for this QXL card. This hasn't been forgotten, and I shall pay asap.
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi, maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. Most of you know that, before Wolfgang became registrar, all SMSQ/E related royalties and licenses matters went through me to Tony. That was the fact for ALL SMSQ/E royalties, including the Q40/Q60. > > > The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to > > > sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or > > > agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. > > MAY ? > > Do they? There is no secret about the SMSQ/E royalty for the Q40/Q60. The agreement with Tony was, that Peter paid a fixed amount of money to get Tony started (including a personal license for Peter, if I remember correctly ... it's so long ago now) and every additional licesens which was sold by Peter or QBranch had to be purchased through me. Qbranch bought individual licenses directly from me. Peter bought individual licenses directly from me. D&D never purchased a license from me. The last license purchase by Peter was early February 2002. Then the whole discussion started. After that, neither Peter nor D&D have ordered or paid any license to me. There was no "gap" - as long as Wolfgang's license was not settled the route to purchase SMSQ/E licenses would have been through me. To make sure that there is nothing I am not aware of, I called Tony a moment ago and asked him - he confirmed that THERE IS NO SPECIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIM AND ANYBODY ELSE AND NO LICENSE MONEY HAS BEEN PAID TO HIM (apart from me and Wolfgang). Jochen
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jochen Merz wrote: > maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. Thanks for the clarification. As a member of the public, Wolfgang's approach aside, I can now see how he arrived there (just wish he gave us a chance to get up to speed too instead of throwing us in at the deep end! ;P) So, D&D are theiving scum. If you bought one, contact Wolfgang directly and offer to pay the license fee. Seems fair. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > On 5 Nov 2002, at 20:07, Bill Waugh wrote: > > (...) > > There are not enough of us left that we should start an us and them > > war. > > It's true that we are a small cmmunity. But surely that doesn't > mean that people should be behaving in an improper manner.? > > Wolfgang Can't argue with that, but few things fit easily into a black or white catagory what is occuring ( as usual ) is a discussion with many versions of the same story and heaps of hypothetical scenarios, if and buts and maybe's generating more emails than we have user's. I'd rather you all spent your time developing the code, you probably agree !!! All the best - Bill > > >
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 at 21:06:28, Dave P wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > > > >On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jochen Merz wrote: > >> maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. > >Thanks for the clarification. > >As a member of the public, Wolfgang's approach aside, I can now see how he >arrived there (just wish he gave us a chance to get up to speed too >instead of throwing us in at the deep end! ;P) > >So, D&D are theiving scum. >If you bought one, contact Wolfgang directly >and offer to pay the license fee. Seems fair. The money is not the issue really. The main point of the license is to ensure there is only one approved version in the field. D&D, according to their adverts, are selling a patched version. This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 at 08:46:11, Phoebus Dokos wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > >Wolfgang, >I was under the impression that Peter had acquired (ie paid) the rights >to resell/modify SMSQ/E... Since D&D systems act as his agents under >British (and American) Common law (which not only gives them liability >but also benefits), they are entitled to distribute SMSQ/E legally. >They do not have the right to sell if for any other system but only for >the Qx0 of course. All this of course is true provided that Peter DOES >carry the right to modify/resell/develop SMSQ/E (which I believe is >true). >Even it isn't so, I do not believe that D&D would want to "hijack" the >software only that there's an honest misunderstanding somewhere > >I hope :-) Woldgang will have to reply to this. I am pretty sure that, although Peter offered, no money changed hands. > >(And not taking sides In any case I am ABSOLUTELY certain that I am >not violating ANY law as my Q40 is a used one bought originally from Q- >Branch... :-) Those were sold prior to the license, and TT was paid royalties via JMS - you are OK (8-)# It is a great pity that Wolfgang felt he had to make this public. I saw what was going on in private, and believe me, we all tried very hard to get a sensible dialogue going. I hope we still can. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Dave P" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: > > > Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a > > year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed > > to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this > > contact or is this above the contact he means? > > Excuse me for pointing out the flaw in this, but if you were aware that > Wolfgang, Tony and Derek agreed to communicate about this issue, you have > just admitted there was prior communication and that you (the company) > were aware of this issue. I was waiting for an email that never arrived, I am still waiting, I think he is using the wrong address, see other posting. > > > Licence money has been paid. I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to > > me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. > > This is a private business matter, but for the sake of transparency and > defusing the serious allegation, would you care to outline to the group > what arrangement you have made? > No not here it must be to Wolfgang in private, as all of this should be. > > Wolfgang, more like WolfGANGSTER, menacingly demanding money without > > an invoice. Watch out, this Wolfgangster bloke's a nutter :-))) > > Dennis, please use this opportunity to take the high ground, not fight to > see who can get lowest in the gutter? ;o) > > That's my job! ;P > > Dave > > Tony Firshman kept emailing me telling me of an important email coming in from Wolfgang _and_ that he was having trouble contacting me, so yes I know all that but where is it so I can respond? The whole thing sounds like a wind up or joke. I did laugh when I first read it, difficult not to. I think I know what the problem has been. We will see. Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > On 5 Nov 2002, at 23:20, dndsystems1 wrote: > > > Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a > > year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed > > to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this > > contact or is this above the contact he means? > > Ahh, at last a reaction. > Just for the record, this is a blatant lie. > I have contacted YOU on "dndsystems1" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in this matter. That is the wrong address you fool and you know it. Do you think I have not searched through that address, you have been informed of the correct address to use but you will not use it, why? Even now you have not contacted me on the D&D address but you have had me waiting for over a week expecting it to come in, what can I do if you will not send it. Everyone else around the world contacts us but you do not know how to do it. > > I have contatced DEREK on the email he GAVE me for > correspondence on this matter. > > You have had a copy of this email for a week on this. > If you want to deny this, that's fine by me. > > > Licence money has been paid. > TO WHOM? > WHEN? > > > >I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to > > me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. > > Hmm, that's NOT what Tony said to me. > > > > > We have sold machines that do not have SMSQ/E - they boot into QDOS > > Classic instead but then you already know that fact?? > > On ROM? > > > Etc. etc. etc. this is stupid. Has Wolfgang had a tap on the head > > recently? (a great cure for water on the brain as it happens). > > Just address this matter, irony I can do without. > > > Do you, Wolfgang, still intend to send this mystery email to me? > > No. > > > If not why not? > > Oh, for various reasons. > First of all, I don't send out 'mystery emails'. > Second, Derek ACKNOWLEDGED to me that he had received my > prior email which did contain a copy of the message I intend(ed) to > send to this list. If you two aren't speaking to each other, that's > NOT my concern. Both of you are acting for D&D. > Third, it is up to you to request to become a reseller. If you don't,n > you are at fault. Despite that, I DID TAKE the initiative to contact > you. You know what your reaction was, i.e. none. > > > Wolfgang, more like WolfGANGSTER, menacingly demanding money without > > an invoice. Watch out, this Wolfgangster bloke's a nutter :-))) > . > > If you sell SMSQ/E without a licence you are breaking the law - not > me as you are trying to make out. > > Wolfgang Derek does not deal with this, that is why I asked him to point you to me _after_ Tony Firshman assured me email(s) were coming in my direction but they never did, did they? Whatever is said from now on I am going to offer you an olive branch - do you understand? - you nicely email me with your concerns and I will work through them with you. You must know the correct address by now, just use it. Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Tony Firshman wrote: > The main point of the license is to ensure there is only one approved > version in the field. > D&D, according to their adverts, are selling a patched version. > > This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. Hmmm, another problem with the license. Until they submit the changes with source to him, he can't make them 'official', so they can't sell them, thereby can't sell the Q60. So basically, Wolfgang has veto power over their ability to sell machines, to some extent. They "can't" sell them with SMSQ/E until he approves the changes. This also requires them to contribute their changes to other branches of SMSQ too, and to divulge their intellectual property. Can. Of. Worms. *shudders* Glad I'm not stuck in this position. :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:47 AM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > Morning Dennis, > > now that you have responded, is there any chance that a meaningful exchange > of information can take place beteween yourselves (D&D) and Wolfgang to sort > out the problem withour further recousrse to name calling and public > accusations ? > > You say no-one has contacted you. > Wolfgang et al say differently. > You say you have paid TT and Wolfgans says TT says not. > > Someone somewhere is not communicating ! > > Please get it all sorted out before we have another flame fest on the list. > > > Cheers, > Norman. > Good evening Norman, The reply I will post with this should sort Wolfgangs problem out. I get the impression he has always used the wrong address hence 'Black hole syndrome' never mind he can take it all back later on :-) Dennis - D&D Systems > - > Norman Dunbar > Database/Unix administrator > Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. > mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk > Tel: 0113 289 6265 > Fax: 0113 289 3146 > URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com > - > > > -Original Message----- > From: dndsystems1 [mailto:dndsystems1@;supanet.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > > > Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a > year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed > to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this > contact or is this above the contact he means? > > Licence money has been paid. I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to > me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. > > > > This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and > may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you > must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy > it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the > addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email > and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx > Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Dave P" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jochen Merz wrote: > > > maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. > > Thanks for the clarification. > > As a member of the public, Wolfgang's approach aside, I can now see how he > arrived there (just wish he gave us a chance to get up to speed too > instead of throwing us in at the deep end! ;P) > > So, D&D are theiving scum. If you bought one, contact Wolfgang directly > and offer to pay the license fee. Seems fair. > > Dave > > Thanks for your support Dave, always welcome :-) Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Jochen Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > Hi, > > maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. > > Most of you know that, before Wolfgang became registrar, all > SMSQ/E related royalties and licenses matters went through me > to Tony. That was the fact for ALL SMSQ/E royalties, including > the Q40/Q60. > > > > > The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to > > > > sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or > > > > agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. > > > MAY ? > > > Do they? > > There is no secret about the SMSQ/E royalty for the Q40/Q60. > The agreement with Tony was, that Peter paid a fixed amount of > money to get Tony started (including a personal license for Peter, > if I remember correctly ... it's so long ago now) and every additional > licesens which was sold by Peter or QBranch had to be purchased > through me. > > Qbranch bought individual licenses directly from me. > Peter bought individual licenses directly from me. > D&D never purchased a license from me. > The last license purchase by Peter was early February 2002. > Then the whole discussion started. > After that, neither Peter nor D&D have ordered or paid any license to me. > > There was no "gap" - as long as Wolfgang's license was not settled > the route to purchase SMSQ/E licenses would have been through me. > To make sure that there is nothing I am not aware of, I called Tony a > moment ago and asked him - he confirmed that THERE IS NO > SPECIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIM AND ANYBODY > ELSE AND NO LICENSE MONEY HAS BEEN PAID TO HIM > (apart from me and Wolfgang). > > Jochen > Peter has paid the licences in advance of sales. Sales to the end of the year need to be paid at year end. Peter has asked Wolfgang for the bank account to pay licence fees and although Peter has had replies from Wolfgang on other matters the bank account is still a mystery to Peter and therefore me. I formed the impression that the acount might not have set up yet, I don't know. Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: > Thanks for your support Dave, always welcome :-) Well, it's such a polarised debate, I figure I should at least take both sides to be fair ;) Since you're here - what's the chance of a Q60 that comes without a processor, for those of us that have 060's laying around? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Dave P wrote: > So basically, Wolfgang has veto power over their ability to sell machines, > to some extent. I thought they can sell it with QDOS classic? Anyway, if the patches are ok I see no reason for Wolfgang to reject them. > They "can't" sell them with SMSQ/E until he approves the changes. Only if the official version does not already work. > This also requires them to contribute their changes to other > branches of SMSQ too, and to divulge their intellectual property. The patches in question are Qx0 specific. And actually it's currently a one-way street in the other direction, they profit from MY work. Furthermore I have spent quite some time helping people getting their Qx0 code to work (stupid, stupid me). I'd be more than GLAD if some time I would get some contribution in return. Instead this BS is happening. Cheers, Marcel
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch and the Grafs had split, so could not. In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,"use QDOS Classic", my message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms keep shooting themselves in the foot? P.S. I am bringing 4 new keyboard membranes for sale. -- Tarquin Mills ACCUS (Anglia Classic Computer Users Society) http://www.planet14.sonow4u.co.uk/comp/accus/
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Thanks for the clarification. As a member of the public, Wolfgang's approach aside, I can now see how he arrived there (just wish he gave us a chance to get up to speed too instead of throwing us in at the deep end! ;P) This was not a situation he arrived at without a great deal of pain. So, D&D are theiving scum. If you bought one, contact Wolfgang directly and offer to pay the license fee. Seems fair. No unfair if D&D are charging the public for something for which they have not entitlement and, furthermore are no paying for. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
D&D, according to their adverts, are selling a patched version. This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. Hmmm, another problem with the license. No because the licence forbids the distribution of unauthorised versions. Simple. Put the worms back in the can. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Tarquin Mills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:03 PM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. > In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch > and the Grafs had split, so could not. > In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I > find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,"use QDOS Classic", my > message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms > keep shooting themselves in the foot? > > P.S. I am bringing 4 new keyboard membranes for sale. > > -- >Tarquin Mills > > ACCUS (Anglia Classic Computer Users Society) > http://www.planet14.sonow4u.co.uk/comp/accus/ No they are not illegal, the O/S is the same as it always was. Before D&D started production a fault was repaired that had been there for some time, very minor but it stopped the O/S performing as it should. This is documented in QL Today and elsewhere, quite old and well accepted, nothing to do with anything else, it was Q40 specific. Why do you belive what has been written before? If nothing has changed why is the O/S wrong today? You have been lead up a false trail with no evidence, unfortunately you believed it. See you at the show, Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Dave P" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: > > > Thanks for your support Dave, always welcome :-) > > Well, it's such a polarised debate, I figure I should at least take both > sides to be fair ;) > > Since you're here - what's the chance of a Q60 that comes without a > processor, for those of us that have 060's laying around? > > Dave > > You cannot be serious, man. We have a contracted agreement with Quanta to supply complete working motherboards as a minimum and that includes some kind of O/S, as we have stuck rigidly to the contract conditions the answer is er... no! Quanta have in effect granted us overdraft facilities so we never go into the red at D&D and can afford to invest in massive hardware projects like er... oh yes, the Q60. If your CPU is any good? you might be able to sell it to Peter Graf who could supply it to us and we could sell it to you :-) All our motherboard components and expansion cards must come from Peter as this is another contract we do not deviate from. It makes absolute sense, one point of quality control for guaranteed components and a quality build. I have lost a complete evenings work messing about with is silly email stuff instead of working. A bit of a dent in the production schedule, never mind its all for a good cause, or is it? Makes you wonder sometimes. If I get to bed before 1:00am it won't be too bad, better than the 4 hours I got yesterday. Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
This license creates so many grey areas. For example, I have a QXL card, but no OS, yet one was originally supplied with it. Do I have to buy another copy of SMSQ? If I buy QPC do I have to pay for yet another full copy of SMSQ or can I just pay the extra 10 Euros for each additional version? [1] You are quite welcome to a copy of the free version of SMSQ which was supplied with it. I can email it to you if want. SMSQ/E was always a paid version and you can buy that if you want. Bopttom line, maybe D&D are trying to get something for nothing. I hope not, but the suspicion remains and I'll veto my Q60 purchase (which is some way off anyway) until this issue is resolved and license fees are shown to have been paid. I do not think this is down to money and I do not think that D&D are trying to steal anything. I think the problem is with the changes that have been made to SMSQ/E to make it work with the Qxx machines. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi Folks I was going to keep out of this, I am not going to takes sides. BUT, there seems to be an opinion that the License controlled by Wolfgang is a final solution to the SMSQ debate. I would just like to note that several folks have not agreed to this license, else they would have asked Wolfgang to be a reseller, surely then, as they do not wish to agree to new terms, they must be legally able to continue as they did before the license was envisaged, in other words before they can be held to have to comply with a new set of rules, they would have to agree these changes. Otherwise the new license would not apply to them. You can't decide to change the terms of sale, long after you sold the item, without the consent of the buyer. If they don't want to be held liable to this license, why should they pay a new charge, they will be able to continue with the contract they already have just a thought Regards to all Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: "Tarquin Mills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:03 PM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. > In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch > and the Grafs had split, so could not. > In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I > find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,"use QDOS Classic", my > message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms > keep shooting themselves in the foot? > > P.S. I am bringing 4 new keyboard membranes for sale. > > -- >Tarquin Mills > > ACCUS (Anglia Classic Computer Users Society) > http://www.planet14.sonow4u.co.uk/comp/accus/ > >
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Tarquin Mills writes: > In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. > In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch > and the Grafs had split, so could not. > In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I > find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,"use QDOS Classic", my Hopefully somethingll be sorted out by then. > message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms > keep shooting themselves in the foot? <> The "simple and stark" message, that incidentally also applies to a certain other beleaguered minority interest group in the painful process of publicly ripping itself apart, must be: Unite or Die ;) Per
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
One thing that puzzles me; Dennis states that Wolfgang used the wrong address so he never received it. However the "wrong" address seems to be the one that Derek uses to contact this list. I've never come across a "send only" email address before. Wolfgang, with the benefit of hindsight, don't you think it would have been diplomatic to use this list to make the contact with D & D instead of starting a war? I'm sure that a carefully worded question posted to him publicly would have ensured you would have got the response you were looking for. regards, Jeremy
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: > You cannot be serious, man. We have a contracted agreement with Quanta > to supply complete working motherboards as a minimum and that includes > some kind of O/S, as we have stuck rigidly to the contract conditions > the answer is er... no! Quanta have in effect granted us overdraft > facilities so we never go into the red at D&D and can afford to invest > in massive hardware projects like er... oh yes, the Q60. If your CPU > is any good? you might be able to sell it to Peter Graf who could > supply it to us and we could sell it to you :-) Hehehe :o) Sounds kinda contorted. Does this mean you're not allowed to sell spares? If someone's Q60 breaks and it's outside the warranty period, do they have to buy a whole new Q60? > I have lost a complete evenings work messing about with is silly email > stuff instead of working. I know how it goes. I have lost about 2 hours of ARM/E development time in the process of spitting fire at the unpolitik of it all! Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Roy Wood wrote: > You are quite welcome to a copy of the free version of SMSQ which was > supplied with it. I can email it to you if want. SMSQ/E was always a > paid version and you can buy that if you want. Thank you for the offer but you didn't supply the QXL and I still have a debt to the person who did. I was debating purchasing QPC but unfortunately I'm now a Mac user and the PC with the ISA slot is failing through old age. I am seriously debating the possibility of looking at uQLx and the possibility of getting the QXL running under linux/BSD. This won't help me directly because the Mac has no ISA slot, but I will be able to enjoy it if I can find a replacement mobo that has one on pricewatch.com. Actually, just found the perfect machine for it in my store room! Never mind! Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 6/11/2002 10:59:59 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > > > >On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Roy Wood wrote: > >> You are quite welcome to a copy of the free version of SMSQ which was >> supplied with it. I can email it to you if want. SMSQ/E was always a >> paid version and you can buy that if you want. > Actually his QXL as well as mine came from the same person and both of them had SMSQ/E 2.91 paid for (see my other email). I remember there was a price to pay for upgrading to the colour drivers one (see my other email again) and I do want it... yesterday ;-) (It wouldn't matter that much if I hadn't to test Q-Word -or better its graphics and midi output- on it) Phoebus P.S. Dave pls email me or ICQ me when you have time
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 19:57, Jochen Merz wrote: > > Hi, > > maybe I can add a bit of clarification here. >(...) That made matters pretty clear, didn't it? Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 18:03, Dave P wrote: (...) > I feel you do have authority. You're TT's representative in this matter. That's my "legal" authority, then... (...) > > Granted, this is a gross simplification, but that's how it looks. I never thought it had come accross like that. > How do you know that they weren't sitting on a stock of 25 pre- blown > EPROMS and have been nibbling away at these with sales, and would have > made appropriate arrangements when this got down to 2 or 3 EPROMS? This is > pure conjecture. Again, only D&D can clarify this. Because they hand't bought 25 licences from TT previously. > > Thanks fo the "technically" > > As I said previously, I hold your technical skills in highest regard. :-)) > This license creates so many grey areas. For example, I have a QXL card, > but no OS, yet one was originally supplied with it. Do I have to buy > another copy of SMSQ? This is not a grey area at all. If you buy a loaf of brad and lose it, are you entitled to a new one? I know a pretty bad analogy but still... Even so, you might want to contact your vendor to see whether he can supply you with a new version. > If I buy QPC do I have to pay for yet another full > copy of SMSQ or can I just pay the extra 10 Euros for each additional > version? [1] Well, the full copy of SMSQ/E costs only 10 EUR, unless the vendor wishes to charge more. However, if you buy QPC you pay for QPC. If you buy a new QPC, you buy a new version of SMSQ/E and should pay for it. (...) Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
> The money is not the issue really. > The main point of the license is to ensure there is only one approved > version in the field. YES > D&D, according to their adverts, are selling a > patched version. > > This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. > -- > QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 > tony@.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk >Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 > TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG > Exactly! WOlfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 17:49, Dave P wrote: > > but it's > still a very strong allegation without some lighter questioning first, > even if you had reached a point of going public. OK, you're not the only one to make this point and I can accept that. I was just pretty fed up. > > MAY ? > > Do they? > > I don't know, and nor do you. Yes I do - they don't. > My mistake. I think of "The Grafs" as the originator oif the rather spiffy > Q60, which is made by D&D. No doubt, the Graffs had an arrangement for > SMSQ/E which they may have transferred or sublicensed to D&D to make quite > lawfully. We do not know. See above. > Unfortunately, knowing may be very destructive, as knowing the license > fees paid means knowing exactly what D&D's sales are, and therefore what > production is, and if you knew how few units they may have sold, the scene > may become even more disheartened than it already is. Well, I never asked D&D to make their sale figures public, did I? I personally don't care whether they sold 1 or 100, even if I would prefer if they sold 1000s! > It's not the message, it's the voice. So my tone of voice wasn't appropriate. Message understood! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 22:26, dndsystems1 wrote: > Peter has paid the licences in advance of sales. Sales to the end of > the year need to be paid at year end. Peter has asked Wolfgang for the > bank account to pay licence fees and although Peter has had replies > from Wolfgang on other matters the bank account is still a mystery to > Peter and therefore me. I formed the impression that the acount might > not have set up yet, I don't know. He has not asked me for that informationsince the licence has become in force! He has Tony's bank account, of ourse and canpay him directly, if he so wishes. He could send tony a cheque (or me). etc Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 0:19, dndsystems1 wrote: > I have lost a complete evenings work messing about with is silly email > stuff instead of working. A bit of a dent in the production schedule, > never mind its all for a good cause, or is it? Makes you wonder > sometimes. If I get to bed before 1:00am it won't be too bad, better > than the 4 hours I got yesterday. If it is any consolation to you, I have lost more than that. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 0:40, dndsystems1 wrote: > No they are not illegal, the O/S is the same as it always was. Before > D&D started production a fault was repaired that had been there for > some time, very minor but it stopped the O/S performing as it should. Dennis, let me enlighten you a little bit here. Perhaps this will actually help you. The fact is that YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to repair a fault in the OS - just like you would not be allowed to take a book from an author and change some sentences in it because you find them better. The OS is NOT yours or anybody else's to change - unless the authior has agrred to it. Guess what : he has agreed to this - provided, however, that, if these changes are to incoprporated into e version sold by anyone, they are reported to AND AGREED TO by me. Has this happended? NO. > This is documented in QL Today and elsewhere, quite old and well > accepted, nothing to do with anything else, it was Q40 specific. That doesn't change anything. > Why > do you belive what has been written before? If nothing has changed why > is the O/S wrong today? The 'OS' isn't wrong. You are just selling something which you are not allowed to sell. > You have been lead up a false trail with no > evidence, unfortunately you believed it. And rightly so! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 21:42, dndsystems1 wrote: > The reply I will post with this should sort Wolfgangs problem out. I > get the impression he has always used the wrong address hence 'Black > hole syndrome' never mind he can take it all back later on :-) > There seems nothing to take back Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 20:34, Bill Waugh wrote: > Can't argue with that, but few things fit easily into a black or white > catagory Actually, I was hoping to get some explanation from D&D to make this entire thing a bit less black and a bit more grey... > what is occuring ( as usual ) is a discussion with many versions of the > same story and heaps of hypothetical scenarios, if and buts and maybe's > generating more emails than we have user's. :- > I'd rather you all spent your time developing the code, you probably > agree !!! Yes, but - the way I look at it now is that some people (or at least me) is trying to get a good version of SMSQ/E for every machine, including the Q60 (for example, the fast memory was incorporated into the official version of SMSQ/E) whereas some others just don't play by the rules but still profit from my work... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 0:52, Mike MacNamara wrote: > > Hi Folks > I was going to keep out of this, I am not going to takes sides. > BUT, there seems to be an opinion that the License controlled by > Wolfgang is a final solution to the SMSQ debate. Well, legally - yes. > I would just like to note that several folks have not agreed to > this license, Indeed. > else they would have asked Wolfgang to be a > reseller, surely then, as they do not wish to agree to new terms, they > must be legally able to continue as they did before the license was > envisaged, No, sorry, this is wrong. If you don't agree with the licence, then you stop. > in other words before they can be held to have to comply > with a new set of rules, they would have to agree these changes. NO. Sorry,, this sounds harsh, but the licence holder may change the licence. If you don't agree wiht the licence, then you just must walk away. > Otherwise the new license would not apply to them. You can't decide to > change the terms of sale, long after you sold the item, without the > consent of the buyer. True - so nothing changes WITH THE ITEMS THEY HAVE SOLD UNDER THE OLD LICENCE. > If they don't want to be held liable to this > license, why should they pay a new charge, they will be able to > continue with the contract they already have In this respect, you are right. But, they are selling new versions now Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 22:55, Dave P wrote: > > Until they submit the changes with source to him, he can't make them > 'official', so they can't sell them, thereby can't sell the Q60. Nothing stops them from selling the Q60 with SMSQ/E as it was, does it?. > So basically, Wolfgang has veto power over their ability to sell > machines, to some extent. Wrong. > They "can't" sell them with SMSQ/E until he > approves the changes. Then sell them without the changes. > This also requires them to contribute their > changes to other branches of SMSQ too, and to divulge their > intellectual property. NO. Read the licence again. quote: When such a proposal is made, the person proposing it may state whether its change/addition/modification is to be : - distributed in the official versions of the source and binary codes, or - distributed in the official versions of the binary codes only, or - not distributed in the official versions, but alongside them. If it is in the binary only, nobody (apart from me) gets to see it. It's the price you pay for trying to have unified versions. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 2:01, Jeremy Taffel wrote: > > Wolfgang, with the benefit of hindsight, don't you think it would have > been diplomatic to use this list to make the contact with D & D > instead of starting a war? I'm sure that a carefully worded question > posted to him publicly would have ensured you would have got the > response you were looking for. Ah, hindsight - 20/20 vision... To be quite frank - I'm not sure. D&D had a copy of the message posted to this list for a week before it was posted, including the mention that I intended to post this .No reply. So? Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 21:23, dndsystems1 wrote: > That is the wrong address you fool and you know it. Hmm, it's the address YOU use to post on here. Since it is foolish to use - what? > Do you think I > have not searched through that address, you have been informed of the > correct address to use but you will not use it, why? Even now you have > not contacted me on the D&D address but you have had me waiting for > over a week expecting it to come in, what can I do if you will not > send it. Everyone else around the world contacts us but you do not > know how to do it. YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR A WEEK? Ha! This is so ridiculous, it had me laughing for a minute. Let's set seom things straight, hmmm? First of all, I don't have to contact you. YOU have to initiate contact - after all, YOU are selling something that doesn't belong to you. Second I contaced you at the email address you used here in this list. Reply : silence. Third, I replied to an email (in JULY!) sent to me privately on a totally other matter by Derek, asking about this. Reply: silence. Fourth, after Tony Firshman made enormous efforts to get to you, Derek finally emailed me, giving me a choice of 2 email addresses. I used the first one he gave me. I sent you (D&D) a long email to that address, containing a copy of the one I later sent to the list,and telling you that I intened to put this email on the list. reply : achnowledgement of receipt - then silence. About a week later, I reminded you and asked for your reply. Reply : please use "proper channels". Guess what - at that time, I thought that the proper channel was this here list. > > I have contatced DEREK on the email he GAVE me for > > correspondence on this matter. > > > > You have had a copy of this email for a week on this. > > If you want to deny this, that's fine by me. > > > > > Licence money has been paid. > > TO WHOM? > > WHEN? (no reply here...) > > > > >I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to > > > me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. > > > > Hmm, that's NOT what Tony said to me. > > > > > > > > We have sold machines that do not have SMSQ/E - they boot into > QDOS > > > Classic instead but then you already know that fact?? > > > > On ROM? (no reply here) (...) > > > > If you sell SMSQ/E without a licence you are breaking the law - not > > me as you are trying to make out. > > > > Wolfgang > > Derek does not deal with this, that is why I asked him to point you to > me _after_ Tony Firshman assured me email(s) were coming in my > direction but they never did, did they? Why do youask Derek to point me to you - why don't you contact me, Are you trying to say that Derek never mlentioned my emails to you? > Whatever is said from now on I am going to offer you an olive branch - > do you understand? - you nicely email me with your concerns and I will > work through them with you. You must know the correct address by now, > just use it. It's the one you have use in this list, of course, isn't it? Please note that these are not my concerns, but yours. You are breaking tha if you are selling SMSQ/E without any licence. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 02:01:09, Jeremy Taffel wrote: (ref: <007e01c28601$8a88b6e0$afba0050@taff3>) > > >One thing that puzzles me; Dennis states that Wolfgang used the wrong >address so he never received it. However the "wrong" address seems to be the >one that Derek uses to contact this list. I keep making the same mistake too - because of the two Ds (8-)# It was Dennis who said this. > I've never come across a "send >only" email address before. Reading between the lines, I think Dennis must have problems getting at this received mail. However the bottom line is that _Derek_ got all the mail (packaged into one) by Wolfgang. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 01:28:45, P Witte wrote: (ref: <012601c285fd$2d6ddcf0$0100a8c0@gamma>) >The "simple and stark" message, that incidentally also applies to a certain >other beleaguered minority interest group in the painful process of publicly >ripping itself apart, must be: Unite or Die ;) I object to being linked to the UK Tory party (8-)# -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
RE: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Doesn't everyone ? :o) - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Tony Firshman [mailto:tony@;firshman.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? I object to being linked to the UK Tory party (8-)# This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 21:23, dndsystems1 wrote: > Whatever is said from now on I am going to offer you an olive branch - > do you understand? - you nicely email me with your concerns and I will > work through them with you. You must know the correct address by now, > just use it. I've read this passage again - oh dear what logical faults. Let's try to straighten things out. How can I know the correct address? You haven't mlentioned it here, have you? Now, in his last email, Derek gave me another address. But you see, either Derek speaks for D&D, and then the emails I sent him were sent to the correct address (why send them to another address?), or he doesn't, then of course, I fail to see how the email adress he gave me could be of any help since I can't know whether it truely is D&D's address... As to the Olive branch, it seems that you still don't understand the situation. It is up to you, as a potential reseller to request to become one. Failure to do so simply means you aren't a reseller and are not allowed to sell SMSQ/E. So it is up to you to contact me. However, guess what. I'm not that formal a guy and am quite willing to (re-) initiate contact even though, again, it is NOT up to me. So here it is. You give me, either privately, or (preferrably) on this list, the "correct" email address at which I can formally ask D&D what the hell is going on. I will then do that - but I'm already warning you that I'll send copy of the email to you also to this list. Perhaps we can then work things out and you may then sell SMSQ/E legally. However let me remind you that as a reseller, you must sell only official versions and pay 10 EUR to TT for each copy sold. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:08 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > On 7 Nov 2002, at 0:52, Mike MacNamara wrote: > > > > > Hi Folks > > I was going to keep out of this, I am not going to takes sides. > > BUT, there seems to be an opinion that the License controlled by > > Wolfgang is a final solution to the SMSQ debate. > > Well, legally - yes. > > > I would just like to note that several folks have not agreed to > > this license, > Indeed. > > > else they would have asked Wolfgang to be a > > reseller, surely then, as they do not wish to agree to new terms, they > > must be legally able to continue as they did before the license was > > envisaged, > > No, sorry, this is wrong. If you don't agree with the licence, then > you stop. Do you mean that the many copies I have of SMSQ, if I don't agree to be bound a a new imposed license, are illegal. That can't be right, I have bought an item, and must surely be able to continue using it, while still being entitled to expect it is repaired or updated under warranty, ( sale of goods acts) > > > in other words before they can be held to have to comply > > with a new set of rules, they would have to agree these changes. > > NO. Sorry,, this sounds harsh, but the licence holder may change > the licence. If you don't agree wiht the licence, then you just must > walk away. Not when he has been paid for and concluded the sale. > > > Otherwise the new license would not apply to them. You can't decide to > > change the terms of sale, long after you sold the item, without the > > consent of the buyer. > True - so nothing changes WITH THE ITEMS THEY HAVE SOLD > UNDER THE OLD LICENCE. > > > If they don't want to be held liable to this > > license, why should they pay a new charge, they will be able to > > continue with the contract they already have > In this respect, you are right. > > But, they are selling new versions now. According to D&Ds post, the 'repair' was minor, to make the item able to be used for the purpose it was purchased. If the Grafs have purchased a license to use SMSQ with Q40/60, then surely they must get SMSQ/E that works with that platform, if not, then they have been sold something unsuitable for the purpose it was purchased. Sorry to labour the point, not only I, but hundreds of others, have purchased multiple copies of SMSQ/E with various bits and bobs over many years. Don't tell me now that the copies Roy Wood sells of SMSQ Gold which has been altered (not just repaired) is illegal, and that I am a pirate. Regards Mike > > > Wolfgang > >
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 11:53, Mike MacNamara wrote: > > Do you mean that the many copies I have of SMSQ, if I don't agree to > be bound a a new imposed license, are illegal. That can't be right, I > have bought an item, and must surely be able to continue using it, > while still being entitled to expect it is repaired or updated under > warranty, ( sale of goods acts) Ooops, again I seem to have been unclear. When you buy a copy of SMSQ/E, youbuy it under the licence as exists at that time. You can continue using it under that licence. If the licence changes and you but a new copy of the software, then you must comply (for that copy) with the new version. The situationis silghtly different if you are a reseller - you but a licence from the licence holder and sell the copy under that licence. Then you buy the next one etc (or you buy them in bulk). But when you buy a new copy of the licence and the licence has changed and you don't like the licence, you have two options: refuse to buy (and sell) the software under that licence and walk away. Agree to do so (as a third option, you could also try to negotiate & change the licence...) >According to > D&Ds post, the 'repair' was minor, to make the item able to be used > for the purpose it was purchased. There are no "minor" repairs. > If the Grafs have purchased a > license to use SMSQ with Q40/60, then surely they must get SMSQ/E that > works with that platform, I get a Q40 quite some time ago - it had a working copy iof the OS in it, that did everything it was advertised as doing. > if not, then they have been sold something > unsuitable for the purpose it was purchased. Sorry to labour the > point, not only I, but hundreds of others, have purchased multiple > copies of SMSQ/E with various bits and bobs over many years. Don't > tell me now that the copies Roy Wood sells of SMSQ Gold which has been > altered (not just repaired) is illegal, and that I am a pirate. Roy Wood asked to become a reseller and he is one. No probllem there. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Wolfgang I understand where you are coming from, and I am not taking sides, but with tongue in cheek. Don't you think this can get out of hand? See below Regards Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: "Wolfgang Lenerz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > On 7 Nov 2002, at 11:53, Mike MacNamara wrote: > > > > > Do you mean that the many copies I have of SMSQ, if I don't agree to > > be bound a a new imposed license, are illegal. That can't be right, I > > have bought an item, and must surely be able to continue using it, > > while still being entitled to expect it is repaired or updated under > > warranty, ( sale of goods acts) > Ooops, again I seem to have been unclear. > snip> > > If the Grafs have purchased a > > license to use SMSQ with Q40/60, then surely they must get SMSQ/E that > > works with that platform, > > I get a Q40 quite some time ago - it had a working copy iof the OS > in it, that did everything it was advertised as doing. As did I, from Qbranch, but was the code 'debugged' or 'repaired' minor or otherwise?. It must have been if Q40/60 won't operate without it, That makes us both pirates, and poor Roy a criminal as well. > > > if not, then they have been sold something > > unsuitable for the purpose it was purchased. Sorry to labour the > > point, not only I, but hundreds of others, have purchased multiple > > copies of SMSQ/E with various bits and bobs over many years. Don't > > tell me now that the copies Roy Wood sells of SMSQ Gold which has been > > altered (not just repaired) is illegal, and that I am a pirate. > > Roy Wood asked to become a reseller and he is one. > No probllem there. Hmmm.. SMSQ.Gold , by a non registered person, was long before a new license, was it 'unofficial' ??? regards Mike > > Wolfgang > >
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > This also requires them to contribute their > > changes to other branches of SMSQ too, and to divulge their > > intellectual property. > NO. Read the licence again. > quote: > When such a proposal is made, the person proposing it may state > whether its change/addition/modification is to be : > > - distributed in the official versions of the source and binary > codes, or > - distributed in the official versions of the binary codes only, or > - not distributed in the official versions, but alongside them. > > If it is in the binary only, nobody (apart from me) gets to see it. Ummm, that's exactly what I said. Not only source has intellectual property rights. The compiled code does too. If they're forced to include the results of their labors (if any) into every other version, regardless then two things happen: 1. Lowest Common Denominator - SMSQ has to work in the same way on the least capable hardware as the most capable. Consistency and all that. 2. They have to give features to versions that may not be appropriate to run it. This hinders development of SMSQ/E. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 13:37, Mike MacNamara wrote: > > Wolfgang > > I understand where you are coming from, err .. Germany? :- > and I am not taking > sides, but with tongue in cheek. As I already said - do take side. No problem with me I don't hold grudges for something (politely) said in a discussion. > Don't you think this can get out of hand? See below > > As did I, from Qbranch, but was the code 'debugged' or 'repaired' > minor or otherwise?. It must have been if Q40/60 won't operate > without it, That makes us both pirates, and poor Roy a criminal > as well. THAT is simply not true. The Q60 comes (or at least came) with an SMSQ/E that didn't need to be "patched". At least, I got one of those! > Hmmm.. SMSQ.Gold , by a non registered person, was long before a > new license, was it 'unofficial' ??? Well, first of all, if it was before the new licence, that means that it isn't concerned by this debate. Of course, before the new licence was drafted, there were copies of SMSQ/E sold for various machines - they were sold under the lincence as it existed then ( a FAR MORE restrictive licence then the one we have now). I know, I bought some for my Atari and Gold Card QL, too (and yes, I paid for each version). All perfectly legal. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 15:43, Dave P wrote: > Ummm, that's exactly what I said. Not only source has intellectual > property rights. The compiled code does too. If they're forced to include > the results of their labors (if any) into every other version, regardless > then two things happen: Well if it is in the binary only, then it won't be in the other versions, will it? However, to act like that would, of course, defeat the entire enterprise of havung a unified version of SMSQ/E... I would be pretty hesitant to include something like that in the official version since I think it would go against my very mission... > 1. Lowest Common Denominator - SMSQ has to work in the same way on the > least capable hardware as the most capable. Consistency and all that. > 2. They have to give features to versions that may not be appropriate to > run it. Let's distinguish between two cases here. Take the example of the "MOVEP' instruction, which Fabrizio Diversi is taking out of the code. This will benefit, practcally, the Q60 only. I would , therefor,include it without any qualms in the Q60 version - it is Q60 specific. So, no lowest common denominator. If now another development were done, perhaps like P. Witte's idea of a home directory, i.e. something from which everybody would profit,that and this would be given to me under the proviso that it must be included only in one version, I would look very hard at including it but exluding it from other versions - don't you think I would be right to?. The difference is always, that MY perspective is to advance SMSQ/E on all machines, if feasible. Moreover, to be quite frank, I think that this discussion is VERY theoretical. Why? Because those who would want to exclude code from the benefit for other machines, are seemingly also those that have put themselves outside of the whole idea of developping software for SMSQ/E anyway. Where are all the hordes of programmers wishing to do something for SMSQ/E. Oh, sorry I forgot - none of them likes the licence so they prefer not to do anything (or do it out of sight)! > This hinders development of SMSQ/E. THAT hinders development of SMSQ/E. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Do you mean that the many copies I have of SMSQ, if I don't agree to be bound a a new imposed license, are illegal. That can't be right, I have bought an item, and must surely be able to continue using it, while still being entitled to expect it is repaired or updated under warranty, ( sale of goods acts) You miss the point here, Mike. All software bought before the new licence started is and always will be legal. You can continue to use it as you see fit. All sales post the new licence are covered by it and anyone who supplies a copy of SMSQ/E for any platform has to be an accredited reseller and pay TT his due. But, they are selling new versions now. According to D&Ds post, the 'repair' was minor, to make the item able to be used for the purpose it was purchased. If the Grafs have purchased a license to use SMSQ with Q40/60, then surely they must get SMSQ/E that works with that platform, if not, then they have been sold something unsuitable for the purpose it was purchased. Again a new, patched or fixed version must originate Wolfgang and him alone. As the controlled of the code he will then pass it to the resellers for distribution. Even to change the SMSQ/E string in the config block would be a violation of the licence. No patch or change is minor and all can have repercussions. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Sorry to labour the point, not only I, but hundreds of others, have purchased multiple copies of SMSQ/E with various bits and bobs over many years. Don't tell me now that the copies Roy Wood sells of SMSQ Gold which has been altered (not just repaired) is illegal, and that I am a pirate. Just to put the record straight here. I have never altered, debugged or otherwise changed any of the software I have sold. For one thing I completely lack the knowledge to be able to do it. Interesting that the Q40 would not work without this change that has now been made. When Tony and I said there were problems with the Q 40 we were called liars. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Ummm, that's exactly what I said. Not only source has intellectual property rights. The compiled code does too. If they're forced to include the results of their labors (if any) into every other version, regardless then two things happen: Funnily enough that evil commercial software developer Marcel Kilgus has put all of his changes to SMSQ/E into the source code that Wolfgang is distributing for free whereas the free spirits of open source have not. 1. Lowest Common Denominator - SMSQ has to work in the same way on the least capable hardware as the most capable. Consistency and all that. Wrong. SMSQ/E can be, and indeed has to be, different on different platforms. It just has to be documented and approved. 2. They have to give features to versions that may not be appropriate to run it. ? This does not make sense to me as a sentence. This hinders development of SMSQ/E. No it makes development a bit slower but stops us from chasing our tails looking for bugs in undocumented revisions. As I have said before on this list I have seen many versions of SMSQ/E which were release candidates where TT changed a small bit of code in one place only to find something going really wrong somewhere else. I was one of the beta testers for all of the versions except the Atari ones because I had all of the machines set up here so I know a lot more about this than you may assume. I was also one of the most vocal (ask Jochen) in reporting little things that were wrong. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
You are quite welcome to a copy of the free version of SMSQ which was supplied with it. I can email it to you if want. SMSQ/E was always a paid version and you can buy that if you want. Thank you for the offer but you didn't supply the QXL and I still have a debt to the person who did. Irrelevant it is free software and always was. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tarquin Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. >In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch >and the Grafs had split, so could not. >In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I >find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,"use QDOS Classic", my >message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms >keep shooting themselves in the foot? > >P.S. I am bringing 4 new keyboard membranes for sale. D&D have not notified there presence with the Q60. However, lots to see and people to meet. Plus lots of second user QL equipment, books, and a large Spectrum donation to sort through. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Tony Firshman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 01:28:45, P Witte wrote: > (ref: <012601c285fd$2d6ddcf0$0100a8c0@gamma>) > > > >The "simple and stark" message, that incidentally also applies to a certain > >other beleaguered minority interest group in the painful process of publicly > >ripping itself apart, must be: Unite or Die ;) > I object to being linked to the UK Tory party (8-)# I would have thought a property magnate ( sheds ) with access to the ear of Radio 4 would have been a natural (;-) All the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:08 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > On 6 Nov 2002, at 21:23, dndsystems1 wrote: > > > That is the wrong address you fool and you know it. > > Hmm, it's the address YOU use to post on here. > Since it is foolish to use - what? > > > > Do you think I > > have not searched through that address, you have been informed of the > > correct address to use but you will not use it, why? Even now you have > > not contacted me on the D&D address but you have had me waiting for > > over a week expecting it to come in, what can I do if you will not > > send it. Everyone else around the world contacts us but you do not > > know how to do it. > > YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR A WEEK? > Ha! > This is so ridiculous, it had me laughing for a minute. > Let's set seom things straight, hmmm? > First of all, I don't have to contact you. > YOU have to initiate contact - after all, YOU are selling something > that doesn't belong to you. > Second I contaced you at the email address you used here in this > list. Reply : silence. > Third, I replied to an email (in JULY!) sent to me privately on a > totally other matter by Derek, asking about this. Reply: silence. > Fourth, after Tony Firshman made enormous efforts to get to you, > Derek finally emailed me, giving me a choice of 2 email addresses. > I used the first one he gave me. I sent you (D&D) a long email to > that address, containing a copy of the one I later sent to the > list,and telling you that I intened to put this email on the list. reply : > achnowledgement of receipt - then silence. > About a week later, I reminded you and asked for your reply. > Reply : please use "proper channels". > Guess what - at that time, I thought that the proper channel was > this here list. > As you will see in my other email you are using the wrong address. Derek emailed you and told you to send directly to me using the correct address. > > > I have contatced DEREK on the email he GAVE me for > > > correspondence on this matter. > > > > > > You have had a copy of this email for a week on this. > > > If you want to deny this, that's fine by me. > > > > > > > Licence money has been paid. > > > TO WHOM? > > > WHEN? > > (no reply here...) Peter paid Jochen, so? > > > > > > > >I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to > > > > me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. > > > > > > Hmm, that's NOT what Tony said to me. > > > > > > > > > > > We have sold machines that do not have SMSQ/E - they boot into > > QDOS > > > > Classic instead but then you already know that fact?? > > > > > > On ROM? > > (no reply here) > > (...) Of course on ROM > > > > > > If you sell SMSQ/E without a licence you are breaking the law - not > > > me as you are trying to make out. > > > > > > Wolfgang > > > > Derek does not deal with this, that is why I asked him to point you to > > me _after_ Tony Firshman assured me email(s) were coming in my > > direction but they never did, did they? > Why do youask Derek to point me to you - why don't you contact > me, Are you trying to say that Derek never mlentioned my emails > to you? > > > Whatever is said from now on I am going to offer you an olive branch - > > do you understand? - you nicely email me with your concerns and I will > > work through them with you. You must know the correct address by now, > > just use it. > > It's the one you have use in this list, of course, isn't it? No, never, do not use it. See other email. > Please note that these are not my concerns, but yours. > > You are breaking tha if you are selling SMSQ/E without any > licence. > > Wolfgang You have a fault, it is between advertising for sales and actually selling something, they are 2 different things. We have not worked on the Q60 very much all summer, in other words we have had a break from the work including sales, now demand is high again we are in production and no you cannot buy one until we start to release them, see, no sales of this production run yet. Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:08 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > On 6 Nov 2002, at 22:26, dndsystems1 wrote: > > > Peter has paid the licences in advance of sales. Sales to the end of > > the year need to be paid at year end. Peter has asked Wolfgang for the > > bank account to pay licence fees and although Peter has had replies > > from Wolfgang on other matters the bank account is still a mystery to > > Peter and therefore me. I formed the impression that the acount might > > not have set up yet, I don't know. > > He has not asked me for that informationsince the licence has > become in force! > He has Tony's bank account, of ourse and canpay him directly, if > he so wishes. > He could send tony a cheque (or me). > etc > > Wolfgang But he has asked you, correct. You have not told him, correct. So I do not know, correct. I know from what you have said that you have used [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a redundant address that I use for reading this list, nothing else. If anything other than this list tries to come in it is deleted as spam automatically. If I use another computer to read the list nothing gets deleted and I can see all. This is when I caught Dilwyn Jones, Tony Tebby, Alex Wells and maybe one or two others using the wrong address. I always try to reply using my correct (different) address hoping they will catch on. If anyone wants to contact D&D Systems the front door is [EMAIL PROTECTED] as in all advertising for over a year. Postal, fax & phone are all included. Look on the web www.q40.de. Where is the hard to contact bit? Nobody has been given the Supanet address above to use. It was used 2 years ago for a different purpose, it has never been public. My Email to Tony Tebby was on 08.10.02 18:44 ? Now what? Dennis - D&D Systems
