Roy Wood wrote:
The software Peter is producing seems too important (...)
Not if it isn't made available.
Ah the voice of reason as always.
This all smacks of 'I'll give you a present if you do what I want'
Huhu, dada. Kindergarten level reached at last, and Roy pulls out the
intellectual waterp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wolfgang Lenerz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
The software Peter is producing seems too important (...)
Not if it isn't made available.
Ah the voice of reason as always.
This all smacks of 'I'll give you a present if you do what I want'
--
Roy Wood
Q Branch. 20 Locks
> > Just wondering if making a new Q60 SMSQ/E would be a matter of
bolting
> > on Q60 specific modules to standard SMSQ/E releases?
>
> There already are Q60 specific modules.
That's what I meant. Not having a Q60 here I didn't know if SMSQ/E for
Q60 was same SMSQ/E version as QXL, QPC, Gold Card
On 17 Mar 2004 at 18:28, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
> How much of SMSQ/E for Qx0 is modular and how much "inbuilt" (i.e. has
> to be rewritten every time a new SMSQ/E is released)?
Nothing has to be "rewritten"for the Q60 (or any other machine) every time a new
SMSQ/E is released, unless some changes
In a message dated 17/03/2004 17:47:16 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Rich
Mellor wrote:>In a message dated 17/03/2004 15:17:06 GMT
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >writes:>Bill Cable
wrote:>> > I would also be willing to chip in some $$ also
and it could possibly>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dilwyn Jones
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Alternatively, instead of forcing money he doesn't want onto Peter
Graf, an alternative approach might be to buy into Q60 SMSQ/E
maintenance, i.e. whoever is building and releasing the new SMSQ/E
gets paid to produce a Q60 ve
>
> This looks like a fundamental misunderstanding. I do not want any money
> for my work.
>
> All the best
> Peter
>
Sorry about that. I am always hoping for that elusive web capability for the
QL one way or another. I have several computer related projects at home but
none could possibly be don
> > I would also be willing to chip in some $$ also and it could
possibly
> > work in one of 2 ways. Either buy the rights to put SMSQ/E under
the GPL
> > or pay Peter to release his work under GPL for QDOS Classic or
Minerva.
>
> This looks like a fundamental misunderstanding. I do not want any
m
Rich Mellor wrote:
In a message dated 17/03/2004 15:17:06 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Bill Cable wrote:
> I would also be willing to chip in some $$ also and it could possibly
> work in one of 2 ways. Either buy the rights to put SMSQ/E under the GPL
> or pay Peter to release h
In a message dated 17/03/2004 15:17:06 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Bill
Cable wrote:> I would also be willing to chip in some $$ also and
it could possibly> work in one of 2 ways. Either buy the rights to put
SMSQ/E under the GPL> or pay Peter to release his work unde
On 17 Mar 2004 at 9:37, Dave P wrote:
> A person who does not want money must want something more valuable. ;)
>
Value, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder...
Wolfgang
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This looks like a fundamental misunderstanding. I do not want any money
> for my work.
A person who does not want money must want something more valuable. ;)
Dave
Bill Cable wrote:
> I would also be willing to chip in some $$ also and it could possibly
> work in one of 2 ways. Either buy the rights to put SMSQ/E under the GPL
> or pay Peter to release his work under GPL for QDOS Classic or Minerva.
This looks like a fundamental misunderstanding. I do not
13 matches
Mail list logo
