Hmmm just a thought - should the licence include a clause along the following lines:
- Any changes additions or modifications to SMSQ/E (whether commercial or not) must be sent to the registrar together with the source code together with instructions as to whether they are to be included as part o
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 at 22:58:10, Roy Wood wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
>In message <3D08697D.15521.A14E00@localhost>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
>
>I think the forgoing part of Wolfgang's message was well overdue and
>very well put. His patience and tact in dealing with the issues is to
>b
In message <3D08697D.15521.A14E00@localhost>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I think the forgoing part of Wolfgang's message was well overdue and
very well put. His patience and tact in dealing with the issues is to be
applauded and I also think that this should put the lid on the
discussion for th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2002, at 21:46, Robert Newson wrote:
>
>
>>1 - What EXACTLY has TT offered wrt the source?
> Robert, does that answer your question?
Not sure...haven't got time to read it now, so am priting it so can peruse
it at leisure at work tomorrow...
The ba
On 11 Jun 2002, at 21:46, Robert Newson wrote:
> 1 - What EXACTLY has TT offered wrt the source?
>
(... different possibilities ...)
Alright. So let's talk about the past and the future.
The past:
===
I think I already answered that question in detail, but here goes
(again). Hopefully, th
