1. Euphoria open source update?
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gmail.com> Oct 10, 2006
- 497 views
- 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?
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Oct 11, 2006
- 477 views
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?
- Posted by Ray Smith <ray at RaymondSmith.com> Oct 11, 2006
- 492 views
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?
- Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com> Oct 11, 2006
- 475 views
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?
- Posted by Juergen Luethje <j.lue at gmx.de> Oct 11, 2006
- 510 views
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?
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Oct 11, 2006
- 512 views
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?
- Posted by Juergen Luethje <j.lue at gmx.de> Oct 11, 2006
- 480 views
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