At 09:39 AM 5/31/2002 +0100, you wrote:
Surely
'Porsche 911'
'Boeing 747'
are copyright?
The terms Porsche 911, Boeing 747 can not be copyrighted, but they can be
trademarked. Trade marking just a number is difficult, so Intel went to
the Pentium, a term that is trade markable. Plus, trade
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 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
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
r
On 29 May 2002, at 20:50, Lafe McCorkle wrote:
What about 2.99, 2.A0, 2.A1 ,2.A2 all the way to 2.FF?
Nothing
On Thu, 30 May 2002, dndsystems1 wrote:
right, but the variants of O/S that the numbers refer to are copyright
so the numbers are an identification of O/S with its own copyright.
version 1.xx in an O/S will mean to us (QL users) that this is QDOS
(as far as the program running is
P Witte wrote:
Richard Zidlicky writes:
lack of foresight? We are at version 2.98 now, the sources Wolfgang
received are already different from 2.98 so they would have to be
called 2.99 if they were released as a version. So the next bugfix
after that will cause version 3.00 to be released?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
3) The mechanics of adding commercial developments to the core is not
really that much of a nightmare, provided the resllers send all royalties to
Wolfgang and he then distributes it between all commercial contributors
(including TT) as
On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 11:51:22PM +0100, Roy Wood wrote:
This is obviously a split we
can ill afford, and I feel that although it should not be necessary, it is
in our interest to add a clause to the licence that specifically allays the
Grafs fears. I believe these to be that either they
Wolfgang et al,
This has probably been one of the most passionately argued discussions ever
held on this list. Shows how much people care. However, eventually the
discussions will have to be ended, and just let's hope that a similar amount
of energy goes into developing the software.
Perhaps
