On 3 Dec 2003 at 23:05, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Well, the Trojans are harmless. The horse (with the Greeks inside) is the real
trouble maker.
Phoebus will be charmed to know.
Wolfgang
On 19 Nov 2003 at 12:53, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
(...)
I will think of that (but it's basically a 3.01, excepted for a minor personal
correction about mode8 mask convertion, totally irrelevant I believe for the booting
problem).
And the strangest part is: when lrespr-ed, it works fine!
Only
On 19 Nov 2003 at 9:02, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
Greeting,
Is there on the web any disassembler available free worth a recommendation ?
(I mean a 680xx disassembler... might be ok if it run either on a Q40 or
a PC)
DISA is pretty good, even though not free. I don't know whether it is
On 13 Nov 2003 at 9:26, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
(...)
Do we have any hardware specification/documentation for the eprom on the Q40 ?
(including bus access and signals)
How about reading the working version 2.91 into a file, splitting it up again and re-
programming the (up to now) non
On 12 Nov 2003 at 9:41, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
To check the process, I read the old 2.91 eprom, process them via rrom_bas.
I get a nice file which menuconfig is happy with, finding config block.
Alas, this file fails badly when lrespr-ised.
Oh, now that is very strange!
Looking at the
On 11 Nov 2003 at 19:26, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
(...)
BTW: If anybody is waiting for some private mail from me, I'm coming
to that. Currently I'm dead tired.
More tired than dead, I hope...
Wolfgang
On 11 Nov 2003 at 17:49, Arnould Nazarian wrote:
From the first procedure like PRINT/INPUT or BGET/BPUT encountered in
the filter? OK I see the problem now. Impossible to implement because
such procedure can be user defined.
And, especially, the EX command is invoked BEFORE your filter
On 9 Nov 2003 at 16:39, Arnould Nazarian wrote:
4. Multiple input files
(Tested with QPC 2.03 + SMSQ/E 2.99 and smsq_gold 2.98)
HOWEVER the following test filter doesn't work _with files_:
10 REPeat
20 BGET#0,a:BGET#1,b
30 BPUT#2,a:BPUT#2,b
40 END REPeat
and then EX
On 27 Oct 2003 at 14:58, P Witte wrote:
I hadnt thought of that, (I dont yet have the new Qmenu). But Id still
prefer to know how to do it myself ;)
Fair enough.
if not, I've dug up some old code I hd used previously for a button
with a standard border
I feared, but was hoping I
On 28 Oct 2003 at 11:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
()
The last of these is the old way. The new ways cause the window sprite to
become the default arrow. This occurs in Q60 and in QPC2.
I have only just now discovered this.
So have I
Yes, I can confirm this.
Now why didn't I ever
On 26 Oct 2003 at 20:51, P Witte wrote:
Sorry for being
such a pain, but I have some further questions:
How do I position
a PE window accurately? Problem is, I want to create a
button, to go
into the button frame. Im hoping to use a standard Window
Definition with
a single Loose
Hi all,
The sources for smsqe 3.03 are now officially out.
(smsqe 3.03 itself is avaialble from your usual reseller).
I have enclosed, as an attachment, some small text files, they tell you
what is new in this version.
I shall be sending the sources out on monday to those who have
recently
On 19 Oct 2003 at 19:23, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
(...)
Did you ever find the PE on the web?
It's available like every other PE update before.
Exactly
I suppose it could also be distributed on other ways now, but that's
not up to me to decide.
Finally what happens if I run one of your new
On 16 Oct 2003 at 3:31, Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντό wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:46:55 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You fail to see the argument. Linux (or anything else) if its license is
already a Free Software License by definition it cannot be turned into
something that is NOT
On 16 Oct 2003 at 9:57, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Above statement is formally credited as Copyright (C) Roy Wood
sometime in the last 3 years :o|
Do you think Roy would ... licence it?
Wolfgang
On 16 Oct 2003 at 15:52, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Well, it wasn't the error tables I wanted. It was which statement in a
line of basic caused the error. Launchpad's accessory programs are
written in compiled BASIC and there are some multi-statement lines
causing me
On 14 Oct 2003 at 22:13, Peter Graf wrote:
.
I also think Marcel and Wolfgang work hard. Wolfgang does it without
financial reward, a fact that has my full respect and appreciation. I hope
that those Q40/Q60 developers who, unlike me, see enough reason to follow
Marcel's SMSQ/E route,
On 14 Oct 2003 at 18:44, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Do I hear the sound of rattles being thrown out of prams once more,
children?
rattle, rattle
For goodness's sake, bury the hatchets now (and I don't mean in each
other's heads).
grin
This is rapidly turning into another all too public
On 14 Oct 2003 at 14:52, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
Oh, excuse-me, but I'm only using (and developping it too) on Q40.
I won't call that a waste!
No, it isn't, of course not.
Wolfgang
On 14 Oct 2003 at 12:06, Fabrizio Diversi wrote:
Again,
It should be clear that I am not an expert on this matter , i do not have any
special expertise .
Perhaps - but at least you TRY (and succeed) to do something with the sources.
Just one think , I have as my hobby to play with QL and
On 14 Oct 2003 at 20:28, Tarquin Mills wrote:
(...)
I like the QL because it (the QL community) is in general polite and
friendly.
Yes, that's true - and it makes the occasional storm only stand out that much
stronger.
But, always the optimist, I hope that this might clear the air for a
On 14 Oct 2003 at 13:55, Bill Cable wrote:
(...)
I knew the QL was very special the first time I switch it on and am pleased to
see it receive credit as a key motivator for the Open Source Movement.
:-)
Just to put a further cat amongt the pigeons (I'm in a provocative mood today), let me
On 14 Oct 2003 at 19:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
Forget this idea. I never sold nor trusted Q60 SMSQ/E versions after Tony Tebby.
I can understand that you didn't sell any.
But not trust any newer version?
Do you mean there are, what, timebombs in the code?
Somebody, on purpose,
On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos (è á. ç) wrote:
I do not think that the Qx0 and QPC are directly competing with each but
they do indirectly.
To explain: Basing an OS around an emulator, tempts users to totally
abandon hardware for software only.
Oh boy, do I disagree with
On 15 Oct 2003 at 10:29, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
That implies the rattle is still in your hand and not yet been thrown,
right?
No, it's the echo.
(...)
This IS a subject that affects many (perhaps even all) of us.
As long as something constructive comes out of it (e.g. agreement on
updated
On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:59, Phoebus R. Dokos (è á. ç) wrote:
(...)
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
SMSQE - OK
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
SMSQE OK
On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos (è á. ç) wrote:
(all cut)
Just a very quick reply to one point.; I'll probably rply to more of this
later.
There is NOTHING
- in the licence
- in what I have ever said
that stops you from developping code specific to a machine.
You want to
On 15 Oct 2003 at 21:53, Christopher Cave wrote:
Any bright ideas? Should I have upgraded QPAC2 sometime?
Oh yes, ask your supplier to send you a new version of QPAC2
Wolfgang
On 14 Oct 2003 at 3:13, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
(...)
Yes, if I was motivated by $$$ I would have left the scene several
years ago, I'd have to sell at least 1 QPC per hour to really make it
commercially viable for me. But writing computer software is my only
income and therefore I must somehow
On 13 Oct 2003 at 23:11, Peter Graf wrote:
Well and we felt we walked 100 miles toward a compromise while you didn't
move an inch.
Fortunately enough, then, the amendments to the licence, in reply to
your requests (and those of others) have been done publicly, in this
forum, so I'll let
On 13 Oct 2003 at 21:35, John Taylor wrote:
Mutual admiration societies achieve nothing.
There are differences of opinion in almost all aspects of QL computing.
The 'licence' is just one of them. Long may this continue.
All we have to do is just keep pushing.
Perhaps, though, some
On 13 Oct 2003 at 15:58, Phoebus R. Dokos (è á. ç) wrote:
As for Wolfgang's comments I would respectfully disagree.
Well, at least we can agree to disagree :-).
As I said
earlier it's anyone's choice how much they value their principles. Maybe
Peter (and I do not speak for him
On 14 Oct 2003 at 10:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
Most Q60 users??? AFAIKS the number of Q60 users who requested _upgrade_
of SMSQ/E binaries to _your_ versions is ZERO in about one and a half
year. Which proves total failure of your only through reseller concept.
Sure SMSQ/E is
On 11 Oct 2003 at 23:17, Peter Graf wrote:
(...)
Q60 Successor:
(...)
After the departure of Tony Tebby,
I see no basis for projects like this anymore, because there's no common ground
with the new SMSQ/E maintainers,
Well of course not, you never tried to find one.
and at the same
On 13 Oct 2003 at 8:51, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
Is there any uptodate Web page listing the know/resolved bugs with version
(sort of changes.txt, with pending bugs listed as extra).
No, not to my knowledge.
I do keep a list of bugs that are sent to me/published here on the list.
Yours will be
On 6 Oct 2003 at 9:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 24/09/03 19:33:23 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
PARTYP, PARUSE, PARNAM$, and PARSTR$ dont work on Smsq/e 3.00 and 3.01. Ok
I agree.
This will be fixed in the forthcoming version 3.03
Wolfgang
On 1 Oct 2003 at 0:03, P Witte wrote:
.
I already use this keystroke in a number of my programs for the purpose (F5
in Qwirc, FF and others, and F10 in older programs) so in my case Id want to
override, disable or avoid this facility in individual programs.
Err, no, you wouldn't - this
On 24 Sep 2003 at 19:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
One of the biggest problems with SMSQ/e (especially on the Aurora version)
has always been that if FORMAT flp1_ works on a DD disk, try it after
FLP_DENSITY 'D' - always gives an error !!
Wonder why??
No Idea (yet, hopefully).
Hi all,
I'm toying with the idea of implementing, withing SMSQ/E, some sort of
general keystroke which will put the content of a con channel into the
stuffer buffer (similar to CTRL-C on Windows) when using the edit/input
string OS call (eg. INPUT inSbasic).. Thus, all software which uses the
On 26 Sep 2003 at 0:04, P Witte wrote:
(...)
Are you thinking of buffering output sent to each scr/con channel, or are
you thinking of using OCR, as in Qlip, or something else?
and On 25 Sep 2003 at 17:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
The prblem comes when you want to highlight an area of
On 23 Sep 2003 at 13:28, Derek Stewart wrote:
Sernet works on all SMSQ/E systems and also non-SMSQ/E systems with SIMSER.
On a QL with Superhermes, you will have to use SER1 or SER2. The superhermes SER3
failed to connect on my serial network. I think is is a limitation of the SER3
On 30 Jul 2003 at 19:12, gwicks wrote:
I decided about 10 days ago to get out of the QL world and then spent two
days working on the timetable to do it. When I had done that I had a
tremendous sense and relief and relaxation. I realised I should have done it
a year ago.
That's pretty sad -
On 29 Jul 2003 at 16:05, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Europe or UK? There have only been a few voices so far, so what are
the
rest of you thinking?
Eindhoven is a good venue, of course, for those in Europe.
It would definitely make it better for me and feasible to come.
Wolfgang
On 17 Jul 2003 at 9:42, Gerhard Plavec wrote:
Hi old QL-fellows :)
old?
he he
Oh... and where can I get the OpenSource SMSQ/E to compile it by myself ?
open source is an unfortunate expression (please, let's not get into THAT debate
again).
You can get the SMSQ/E sources from me.
Send me
On 16 Jul 2003 at 12:28, Mark Martin wrote:
(...) Please do NOT flame me.
people don't generally get flamed on this list, as ong as they express themselves
civilly
(which is you case)
(...)
I'm curious to understand why just about anything for the QL is commercial.
Others have
O * A little bit of politics included to upset Tony. Work out for yourself
whether I mean Blair or Firshman.
Blair reads this list?
Wolfgang
O(...)
SMSQ/e has an outstanding bug in this instance as well - take for example:
10 DIM x(10)
20 c=1:TEST c,x
100 DEFine PROCedure TEST(a,b)
110 DIM b(100)
120 END DEFine
Running this program gives the error as described.
True.
However, try entering as a direct command:
CLEAR:
First of all, thanks to all of you who replied.
It transpires that there simply doesn't seem to be a way to do what I
wanted.
P Witte wrote:
1) Dimension the array to the max youre ever going to need right from the
start. (This is analogous to your suggestion re the buffer problem we
On 14 Mar 2003 at 7:35, Dave Walker wrote:
The hardest part will be to get agreement on the SB interface needed to
support what is wanted.
Probably the best would be to have functions to which pass the numbers as strings
to/from the package (eg result$=HP_ADD (number1$,number2$)).
The
QDOSMSQ's main problem , as you have found, is not so much the
range of
numbers that can be represented, but the way that the software displays it.
I'm sure some of the procedure wriuters amongst us, who understand these
floating point things (I don't !), could write a routine to take in
On 12 Mar 2003 at 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
. Otherwise Qdos is just the old fashioned 3-byte 32 bit mantissa, 12
bit exponent.
Hmmm 32 bits + 12 bits in 3 bytes? Interesting.
(just teasing!)
Wolfgang
On 10 Mar 2003 at 13:36, François Van Emelen wrote:
Hi all,
How can I force Sbasic to display correct and readable numeric values?
Here is an example of what I mean.
(rest cut)
Why not use print_using?
Mind you, as Marcel pointed out, this does not get rid of the calculation
errors, but it
Re history device:
Ok, thanks Mike, Dilwyn Duncan and all for your answer
Seems that History does get used.So History isn't
Wolfgang
On 26 Feb 2003 at 14:04, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Also please keep quiet about this issue, I wouldn't want the US
administration to find out that pictures of me can be used as an
easily producible weapon of mass destruction. We only have a few
thousand litres of oil in the house, but one never
On 25 Feb 2003 at 10:40, François Van Emelen wrote:
Hi Dilwyn,
What about 'HISTORY'?
I'd be interested to know whether anybody uses that device at all.
Wolfgang
On 20 Feb 2003 at 10:01, François Van Emelen wrote:
Hi Marcel,
Thank you for your answer.
Wouldn't there be a problem when your Eval$(e$)function is used 1000s of
times?
Isn't there a limit to the number of times a channel can be opened and
closed in a program?
François Van Emelen
No,
On 20 Feb 2003 at 10:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DEFine FuNction val$ (command$,parameter$)
Oops I don't know why that was sent - Marcel has already posted this solution.
Sorry.
Wolfgang
On 6 Nov 2002, at 3:46, Dave P wrote:
And the question is Is Wolfgang able to treat DD 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
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
On 5 Nov 2002, at 19:28, Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote:
(...)
Dennis makes a very interesting
point on which nobody but DD and their customers know how many
Q60 were sold WITH SMSQ/E on ROM?
Thats is indeed, a very good question, to which I would have liked
to have an answer MUCH earlier.
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
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 DD.
As to the rest of Per's message, I
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
On 6 Nov 2002, at 20:06, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
(...)
. More
than once I've sent email to demon.co.uk users and it got lost or
bounced. I'm not sure what's wrong (Adelphia tells me that's demon's
fault.. maybe so as adelphia has a lot of spammers amongst its
users...) nonetheless, it is a
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 DD to make
this entire thing a bit less black and a bit more grey...
what is occuring ( as usual ) is a discussion
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
:-) The problem is how can tight it is into the system and
how many things that are done by SMSQ/E are performed with
the assumption of S*Basic being there?
U - none ? !
Wolfgang
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
On 2 Nov 2002, at 12:07, P Witte wrote:
Wlenerz had just told me that there were only *two* confirmed SMSQ/E
developers
Well, there are also:
Fabrizio Diversi, who modestly only says that he accepts to be a
tester for new versions, but is also doing some Q60 related stuff.
Jerôme Grimbert
On 25 Oct 2002, at 23:58, Tony Firshman wrote:
How about someone being appointed as a name server.
Anyone adding to QDOS/SMSQ for general release should register the name
with one person.
Well, François van Emelem is IT!!!
Wolfgang
On 2 Nov 2002, at 14:56, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Then I'll have one pepperoni pizza please :-)
Watch it Per, Marcel is one great pizza fan...
(...)Of
course, if we had released SMSQ/E into freedom instead of into the
licence as it is, there would now be zillions of developers around and
On 4 Nov 2002, at 9:06, Tony Firshman wrote:
What is his email?
I don't seem to have him on the Ql emailshot list - at least
no 'emelem'
How about Van Emelen?
He does post on the list here...
François Van Emelen francoisDOTvanemelenATchelloDOTbe
Wolfgang
On 30 Oct 2002, at 2:44, Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote:
(Pity I lost it during my last PC crash.. :-(
Had you but asked, I'd have sent it again...
Wolfgang
On 30 Oct 2002, at 14:28, P Witte wrote:
WL©_ASEARCH - ? ;)
How about WL_IS_BEST_..
Youre right, but the chances of a clash are further reduced, and your
list would still help things along. Besides, I think a name or
mnemonic should be helpful in reminding us what it does rather
On 30 Oct 2002, at 1:10, P Witte wrote:
Toolkits will often be grouped for special purposes, such as array
manipulation, string parsing, or to manipulate some low-level object
(such as a database or timer, etc). Wouldnt it be more logical and
aesthetically pleasing to use prefixes such as
On 29 Oct 2002, at 23:43, Derek Stewart wrote:
(...)
What about the other way, say a BMP2PIC converter, as I want to use my
Q60/QPC/Atari QL/QL to view the graphics files.
Derek
I wrote something like that some time ago,as a basic keyword
IIRC. Do you want me to send it to you directly?
Hi all,
I've read this thread about names clashes in toolkits etc. with quite
some interest.
It would seem to me that, at least for the time being, the path of
least resistance would rather be to make sure that names just
don't clash, rather than try to devise various -very ingenious-
schemes
On 28 Sep 2002, at 11:47, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Can anyone else reproduce this problem I'm having with QPC2 v3.03?
(description)
Hmmm, I do this sort of thing all of the time (word 2000), and never
noticed any problems with floppy disks.
I just did it again, still no problem. It is a dos
On 24 Sep 2002, at 20:09, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
The easy way is to just delete the line in the _link file, because the
library is not needed at all ;-) I don't have it either.
Oh, great, I'll do that, then.
The fast memory version can easily live next to the others within the
source
On 16 Sep 2002, at 20:08, P Witte wrote:
Surely this wont be needed in the future? Cant the files just be zipped up
without the dev8_ bit? They can if you do the zipping from inside the QL
(or use an otherwise blank partition on the PC).
OOps, sorry, I expressed myself unclearly - the
Hi all
enclosed a likner make. The make soufce is basic is also supplie
Wolfgang
The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should
On 9 Jul 2002, at 10:43, Norman Dunbar wrote:
Once I get a compilation done, I can check the original 'win1_' and
the 'dev8_' versions for similarity (or complete lack) and if ok, send
Wolfgang what I have.
And I will be very grateful for it!
Once I get to that stage, I'll be having a
On 9 Jul 2002, at 7:52, Derek Stewart wrote:
The styleguide looks very good, but all the programs specified to
compile the SMSQ/E source code are commerical.
Indeed they are.
QMAC and QLINK maybe only available through QuantA
QMAKE is available through Jochen Merz Software
You can also
On 9 Jul 2002, at 12:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all
enclosed a likner make. The make soufce is basic is also supplie
Sorry, that was written a bit hastily as somebody else was talking
in my ear.
What I meant is that enclosed are the make linker. The make is
a compiled basic prog,
On 9 Jul 2002, at 11:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume you mean that you would like GWASS to be altered so that the
Qmac macros would work without any change.
yes.
There are various reasons
why this wouldn't be easy or indeed possible.
For example the conditional instructions in
Hi all,
enclosed is the styleguide.
Wolfgang
The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from
On 22 Jun 2002, at 11:52, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
(snip)
BTW how is it possible that newest QPC has some nonstandard SMSQ
extensions? Have these already been included in the official SMSQ
version?
Richard also asked who uses events.
I do, every day...
Wolfgang
On 14 Jun 2002, at 11:10, Mike MacNamara wrote:
I hope I am not taking sides, it is sad there seems to be sides.
Yess!
I, personally, would dispute that statement. For me, QPC is
just as
important.
I have already said to Marcel and Jochen that in the wee sma
hours I should
On 14 Jun 2002, at 13:25, Mike MacNamara wrote:
Hi Wolfgang
OK, ADSL now up and running, back to business. I know you appear
to have moved along with some others, but the problem is becoming
intractable. A magnanimous gesture of some sort is required, if this
is to be resolved.
Ok,
On 11 Jun 2002, at 16:34, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
(snip - mostly of the GPL licence - you have your understanding, I
have mine)
Whoa there.
Would those who do these bad and evil things please step
forward.
Hmmm - nobody? How strange.
really funny that, but aren't you
On 11 Jun 2002, at 22:21, Peter Graf wrote:
Obvously not knowing he GPL.
I'm afraid that the discussion about GPL (and whether I know it or
not) will lead us too far astray. Let's just say that I will abide by my
opinion on it.
(snip)
Do you really see what you are accusing me?
Hey
On 13 Jun 2002, at 14:11, Richard Zidlicky replying to an email
in reply to Peter Graf wrote:
I'm afraid that the discussion about GPL (and whether I know it or
not) will lead us too far astray. Let's just say that I will abide
by my opinion on it.
you do not have an opinion on it.
On 13 Jun 2002, at 14:23, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
(...)
Did you ask Marcel? I don't see that he could suffer any kind
of disadvantage with GPL.. he is probably the last one who needs
to worry about GPL. He can suffer some inconvenience with this
license.
I did not ask Marcel specifically.
Ok, since this might have been lost in the lengthy reply to Robert, I
am now taking orders for the source code under the licence as it
was set out here.
Please send me an email with your postal address.
Depending on the number of returns, I will have to ask for those
IRCs or not.
I won't be
On 14 Jun 2002, at 1:08, Mike MacNamara wrote:
A locked room seems the only way forward.
I'm not so sure about this at all...
I know you
feel you have all compromised and bent over backwards, and probably
you have, but if you don't go that extra yard, it may end in tears.
The same must be
On 14 Jun 2002, at 2:34, P Witte wrote:
Can this appalling discussion now come to an end, please?
I am not
prepared to evaluate any argument, however just, that is couched in
such grotesque terms as we have witnessed in recent days and weeks.
There is absolutely no value in such
Joachim van der Auwera
wrote:
Ok, what if TT can not be
reached or found (or
worse) ? Or he has no time
or does not know anybody
fit for the job...
What if the amount of code
added is such that he is a
co-author, and not the
main author?
How can you expect people
to write free code
On 29 May 2002, at 16:29, Bill Cable wrote:
Roy and Jochen :
In cases of new versions of SMSQ created by Wolfgang using
only donated code so
the developers are not asking for compensation what might we
expect to pay if we
already own SMSQ?
I would suspect : nothing.
Can a person
On 29 May 2002, at 23:44, dndsystems1 wrote:
Excellent mate, this only needs to be said once, thanks a lot.
By the way, just who is DD, if it is allowed to ask?
Wolfgang
On 29 May 2002, at 19:59, Mail Delivery Subsystem wrote:
Aha, the first real AI, then...
(Sorry, coudln't resist that)
USERS get the license as it stands, but with developer
references stripped
out.
DEVELOPERS get the user licence, with an addendum that
allows distribution
of
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
