1. Euphoria open source update?
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gmail.com>
Oct 10, 2006
-
Last edited Oct 11, 2006
Not to rush you or anything, Rob, but....um...how's it coming along? Not
that I'm excited or anything...
Matt Lewis
2. Re: Euphoria open source update?
Matt Lewis wrote:
> Not to rush you or anything, Rob, but....um...how's it coming along? Not
> that I'm excited or anything...
I should have a release available in less than a week.
As I get closer to releasing it, I keep finding tiny
things that need to be adjusted to fit the new
free and open model. Also, I've decided to call it 3.0.0,
rather than 3.0 alpha. The "alpha", "beta", "official"
system of the past doesn't make much sense anymore.
I expect we'll have more frequent releases (3.0.1, 3.0.2, ...),
and we won't be aiming at some sort of perfect "official" release.
The thing will be constantly improving in small increments
and will have a quicker feedback loop from users regarding bugs etc.
I've created a tentative license. It will be in the download package
and you can also read it here:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/License.txt
If you see any serious problems with it let me know.
I could still change it. It's a very generous license,
but I really can't see any closed source group taking
advantage of us. Also, I want people to be able to
add their own Binder/shrouder encryption, and keep it closed source.
I also want a license that encourages people to use Euphoria and
not get scared away, or turned off, by reading a long
threatening legal document.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
3. Re: Euphoria open source update?
Robert Craig wrote:
> I've created a tentative license. It will be in the download package
> and you can also read it here:
>
> <a
> href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/License.txt">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/License.txt</a>
>
> If you see any serious problems with it let me know.
Hi Rob,
One benefit of using a standard open source license, as recognized by
OpenSource.org
is the recognition program at http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php
It would be "slightly" easier to promote Euphoria in the Free/Open source
world if a standard license was used.
Otherwise ... the
"Do what you want,
just don't sue us, and
it would be nice to recognise us"
seems fair and resonable.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
4. Re: Euphoria open source update?
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> Matt Lewis wrote:
> > Not to rush you or anything, Rob, but....um...how's it coming along? Not
> > that I'm excited or anything...
>
> I should have a release available in less than a week.
> As I get closer to releasing it, I keep finding tiny
> things that need to be adjusted to fit the new
> free and open model. Also, I've decided to call it 3.0.0,
> rather than 3.0 alpha. The "alpha", "beta", "official"
> system of the past doesn't make much sense anymore.
> I expect we'll have more frequent releases (3.0.1, 3.0.2, ...),
> and we won't be aiming at some sort of perfect "official" release.
> The thing will be constantly improving in small increments
> and will have a quicker feedback loop from users regarding bugs etc.
>
> I've created a tentative license. It will be in the download package
> and you can also read it here:
>
> <a
> href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/License.txt">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/License.txt</a>
>
> If you see any serious problems with it let me know.
> I could still change it. It's a very generous license,
> but I really can't see any closed source group taking
> advantage of us. Also, I want people to be able to
> add their own Binder/shrouder encryption, and keep it closed source.
> I also want a license that encourages people to use Euphoria and
> not get scared away, or turned off, by reading a long
> threatening legal document.
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
I think that it sounds pretty good. I think it could be modified if you ever see
any threat from other sources. I don't think that you are very worried about that
though; you have been releasing the binaries as public domain for a very long
time now.
The only thing I would request is making either the second or third digit denote
whether the version is "testing" or "stable" like Linux does/used to do. That is,
it used to be with Linux that if the second digit was odd then it was a testing
version and if it was even then it was a stable version.
Maybe invert that, since it would be weird to start the 3.0.x series with 3.1.x
instead. Or maybe the third digit could denote testing/stable depending on
whether it was even or odd.
--
"Any programming problem can be solved by adding a level of indirection."
--anonymous
"Any performance problem can be solved by removing a level of indirection."
--M. Haertel
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
5. Re: Euphoria open source update?
Jason Gade wrote:
> Robert Craig wrote:
>
>> Matt Lewis wrote:
>>> Not to rush you or anything, Rob, but....um...how's it coming along? Not
>>> that I'm excited or anything...
>>
>> I should have a release available in less than a week.
>> As I get closer to releasing it, I keep finding tiny
>> things that need to be adjusted to fit the new
>> free and open model. Also, I've decided to call it 3.0.0,
>> rather than 3.0 alpha. The "alpha", "beta", "official"
>> system of the past doesn't make much sense anymore.
>> I expect we'll have more frequent releases (3.0.1, 3.0.2, ...),
>> and we won't be aiming at some sort of perfect "official" release.
There is no perfect thing in this world anyway. 
However, I think it would make sense to make a differce between
preliminary versions, and stable versions. Most other software
products that I know make this difference, too.
I would use the newest preliminary version privately, when I want to
try out the new features, and help with finding bugs and making
suggestions for improvement. But at work, or in another context where
reliability is important, I would use the stable version. So denoting
the difference between preliminary and stable versions does make sense
IMHO.
>> The thing will be constantly improving in small increments
>> and will have a quicker feedback loop from users regarding bugs etc.
>>
>> I've created a tentative license. It will be in the download package
>> and you can also read it here:
>>
>> http://www.rapideuphoria.com/License.txt
>>
>> If you see any serious problems with it let me know.
>> I could still change it. It's a very generous license,
>> but I really can't see any closed source group taking
>> advantage of us. Also, I want people to be able to
>> add their own Binder/shrouder encryption, and keep it closed source.
>> I also want a license that encourages people to use Euphoria and
>> not get scared away, or turned off, by reading a long
>> threatening legal document.
>
> I think that it sounds pretty good. I think it could be modified if you ever
> see any threat from other sources. I don't think that you are very worried
> about
> that though; you have been releasing the binaries as public domain for a very
> long time now.
>
> The only thing I would request is making either the second or third digit
> denote
> whether the version is "testing" or "stable" like Linux does/used to do. That
> is, it used to be with Linux that if the second digit was odd then it was a
> testing version and if it was even then it was a stable version.
>
> Maybe invert that, since it would be weird to start the 3.0.x series with
> 3.1.x
> instead. Or maybe the third digit could denote testing/stable depending on
> whether
> it was even or odd.
On principle, I agree (see above).
However, using odd and even numbers to denote whether a version is
"testing" or "stable" is not self-explanatory, and therefore not
understandable by newbies. So I think a short describtion such as
"stable" or "unstable" should be added for utmost clarity.
Regards,
Juergen
6. Re: Euphoria open source update?
Juergen Luethje wrote:
> ...
> On principle, I agree (see above).
> However, using odd and even numbers to denote whether a version is
> "testing" or "stable" is not self-explanatory, and therefore not
> understandable by newbies. So I think a short describtion such as
> "stable" or "unstable" should be added for utmost clarity.
Yes, we should definitely have a "stable" version and
a "bleeding-edge" or test version, and they should be
clearly labeled. The test version might simply be relabeled
as "stable" if it stands up to a lot of testing by a lot of
people without major bugs being reported.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
7. Re: Euphoria open source update?
Robert Craig wrote:
<snip>
> Yes, we should definitely have a "stable" version and
> a "bleeding-edge" or test version, and they should be
> clearly labeled. The test version might simply be relabeled
> as "stable" if it stands up to a lot of testing by a lot of
> people without major bugs being reported.
This is clear, simple, and straightforward. Very nice!
Regards,
Juergen
