In article <3DCCFDB2.73.6C3BD0@localhost>, Wolfgang Lenerz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>On 8 Nov 2002, at 22:21, Malcolm Cadman wrote:
>
>>
>> There seems to be some confusion around SMSQ/E's 'core' and its
>> 'flavours'.
>>
>> It seems to me that Wolfgang has taken on the onerous task of
>> mai
On 8 Nov 2002, at 22:21, Malcolm Cadman wrote:
>
> There seems to be some confusion around SMSQ/E's 'core' and its
> 'flavours'.
>
> It seems to me that Wolfgang has taken on the onerous task of
> maintaining the integrity of SMSQ/E so that it remains consistent and
> coherent, and that all user
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roy Wood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>>The issue I take with it is this notion that all versions of SMSQ/E must
>>be identical. I think this is not in SMSQ/E's best interest because it
>>discour
On 7 Nov 2002, at 17:07, Dave P wrote:
(different possibilities on different machines)
I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but, obviously it is something.
I distinctly seem to remember that, as long as something is useful
only for one machine, I see no problem in putting it in the code for
tha
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
The issue I take with it is this notion that all versions of SMSQ/E must
be identical. I think this is not in SMSQ/E's best interest because it
discourages development.
We never said they have to be identical just 'coherent'. Cod
??? 7/11/2002 3:19:18 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??:
>
>
>This is an *operating system* we're talking about, a way for software to
>use the hardware. If code running on radically different hardware cannot
>be modified to take into account features of that specific hardware, that
>real
??? 7/11/2002 1:02:47 ??, ?/? "ZN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??:
>Then what you really want to say in the licence would be that additions to
>SMSQ/E to add a feature of capability to one platform will not be accepted
>if it may seriously hinder or even prevent adding an equivalent feature or
>cap
??? 7/11/2002 12:07:12 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??:
>
>
>Before replying to Phoebus' post, I'd just like to say that I have the
>utmost respect for someone who changes their mind after expressing a view
>for so long.
Thanks.
Please here note that if TT had made a different point i
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, ZN wrote:
> Obviously, this excludes all platforms where such
> feature simply makes on sense or is impossible (by design - leack of need),
> but does at least suggest some form of forethought, so that we don't get
> 'my way or the highway' style features. This breeds tremen
On 07/11/02 at 17:07 Dave P wrote:
>The issue I take with it is this notion that all versions of SMSQ/E must
>be identical. I think this is not in SMSQ/E's best interest because it
>discourages development.
>
>For example, I think it is good for a version to add a feature that may
>not be support
Before replying to Phoebus' post, I'd just like to say that I have the
utmost respect for someone who changes their mind after expressing a view
for so long.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, [windows-1253] Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote:
> If someone has copies of the list in-or-around '98 he will remember that
> I
Hi all,
everyone knows that I was against the SMSQ/E license from the get-go...
However after receiving TT's opinion on the matter (which is best so we now know
where all interested parties stand at), I have to say that although I retain some
minor reservations on the matter, I now stand behind
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 10:15:13PM +0100, John Sadler wrote:
>
> All your problems would be solved if you use the LGPL license, if the soure
> and code is going to be free.
> Anybody would be able to sell comercial programs using the updated SMSQ/E
> code.
> Official versions would still have to
John Sadler wrote:
>All your problems would be solved if you use the LGPL license, if the soure
>and code is going to be free.
>Anybody would be able to sell comercial programs using the updated SMSQ/E
>code.
>Official versions would still have to be ratified by the appropiate person.
Yes, I th
All your problems would be solved if you use the LGPL license, if the soure
and code is going to be free.
Anybody would be able to sell comercial programs using the updated SMSQ/E
code.
Official versions would still have to be ratified by the appropiate person.
15 matches
Mail list logo
