The Sinclair QL Forum

I've downloaded all the old public versions of the SMSQ/E sources that are available on the official SMSQ/E web site and added them to GitHub:

https://github.com/CodeDreamer/SMSQE

This makes it easier to compare the sources for different versions. I hope that the official sources can also move to source control at some point as that has obvious advantages compared to the current method.

Daniele

Thanks Daniele, I have forked it into the Sinclair QL github too - https://github.com/SinclairQL/SMSQE

Hi,

There is no real need to do this, as Wolfgang has a page with all the old versions of SMSQ/E at:

http://www.wlenerz.com/smsqe/oldversions.html

We know - but the benefit of the github is that it makes it easy to see what has changed between versions.

Then when something no longer works as expected, you can see what changed easily!

Is the Registrar aware of this move? Were any of the copyright holders asked, or even informed of this in advance? (I know I wasnt) Apart from the possible convenience, what are the implications, positive or negative? Hmm..

Hi,

I do not think this breaks of the SMSQ/E Licence and personally I am not too bothered.

But I think notice should of be given to the SMSQ/E Registrar of the proposed action with regards to the SMSQ/E source on Git Hub.

Having been on the wrong of the SMSQ/E Licence in the production of the Q60 and was subjected to alot unwarranted criticism. I would not want this sort thing to happen again.

Obviously, holding the sources in now 3 (!) different places (it is absolutely not clear to me why it needs to be on GitHub twice, btw) holds the danger of splitting SMSQ/E development into various branches, especially when people don't know where the master is stored. I don't even dare to think what pitfalls are opened when code is checked in into one repository and not in another.

If your intent was to simply be able to diff various versions against each other, it would make sense to point this out somewhere in the README (can't see that as of today) and make it very clear that the authoritative repository is with Wolfgang. It would also make sense to point out that the volunteer maintainers are not working on the GitHub branches.

Tobias

pjw wrote:Is the Registrar aware of this move? Were any of the copyright holders asked, or even informed of this in advance? (I know I wasnt) Apart from the possible convenience, what are the implications, positive or negative? Hmm..

The license you chose for your work says you don't care as long as your name is retained.

tofro wrote:Obviously, holding the sources in now 3 (!) different places (it is absolutely not clear to me why it needs to be on GitHub twice, btw) holds the danger of splitting SMSQ/E development into various branches, especially when people don't know where the master is stored. I don't even dare to think what pitfalls are opened when code is checked in into one repository and not in another.

If your intent was to simply be able to diff various versions against each other, it would make sense to point this out somewhere in the README (can't see that as of today) and make it very clear that the authoritative repository is with Wolfgang. It would also make sense to point out that the volunteer maintainers are not working on the GitHub branches.

Tobias

I think proper README.md and licence files should be enough (and it is already done as I can see). I wouldn't be afraid of somebody working on it and several mirrors is not an issue as well. It's quite unlikely for random person to start development on it without any background on what he is working on. Finally, he won't be able to submit any changes, so eventually he will be forced to find out the original source anyway. Even if somebody would decide to split development, he would need support from community, otherwise it will stay as his own pet project. Finally such practice is being used in other open source projects. For example, NetBSD main repository still uses cvs but you can find git, fossil counterparts "automatically" migrated every day (partly official and not). It actually very convenient, not confusing at all (you decide yourself what is the most convenient way to get the sources). Just hope it will be maintained .

The official site has the licence, which states:

LICENCE FOR SMSQ/E

Copyright (c) 1989-2012, by
Tony Tebby
Marcel Kilgus
Bruno Coativy
Fabrizio Diversi
Phoebus Dokos
Thierry Godefroy
Jérôme Grimbert
George Gwilt
John Hall
Mark Swift
Per Witte
Wolfgang Lenerz
collectively called the "COPYRIGHT HOLDERS".
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

So, as long as the copyright stays intact, it should be ok on github. (I have not reproduced the fisclaimer here.)

But, the actual licence is held in the source archive itself, and is the one to follow.

HTH

Norm.