1. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
- Posted by Ray Smith <smithr at ix.net.au>
Sep 19, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 20, 2006
Robert Craig wrote:
> Big News!
> After considering various ways to make a big impact
> on the future of Euphoria for v3.0, including various schemes
> to partially open up the source while still retaining some
> income, I have finally decided to make Euphoria completely
> free of charge, and completely open source.
Wow, what a surprise.
This is great news Rob. I have no doubt you will (in the coming years)
see the full power of Open Source.
> I'd like to make everything Public Domain, but if
> anyone feels that the GNU license is a better way to go,
> speak up.
This is obviously 100% your decision, if you don't mind other people
making closed commercial versions of Euphoria then Public Domian, BSD or
an Apache type license would be fine.
If you would like Euphoria to always be free and open then the GPL.
In general almost all computer languages are based on a GPL license and
it hasn't caused any problems for other languages. The GPL would be my
vote ;)
I hope some old hard heads and new ones jump aboard and drive Euphoria
into the future.
At least in the short term, I'm 100% happy for Rob to be the Leader and
and in full control. In the future I'd love to see a small group lead
the project where enhancements and the future direction are discussed
and voted on.
I'd love to see a mission statement or similiar stating the aim and
future direction for Euphoria. Small, fast, clean syntax etc etc.
Any future enhancements would then be compared with the mission
statement.
I think I'll have to dust off some of my old eu code and start playing
again ;)
Three cheers for Rob and Euphoria :)
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
2. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
D. Newhall wrote:
> Here's a few reasons off the top of my head:
>
> Viral nature:
>
> The GPL "infects" any code it touches. This can even be expanded to code
> created after viewing GPLed code in some cases. Think one of the memory
> allocation algorithms Rob uses is nice? Well, you can't use it unless
> you want whatever you use it in to be GPLed. Many projects and
> businesses don't allow their programmers to even view GPLed code unless
> they know what they're doing. FreeBSD for example has "tainted
> programmers" whose sole job is to simply look at GPLed code and then
> design the specs for the other designers to keep everything completely
> open.
You have the situation completely backwards.
The GPL allows software to stay open and free. The whole purpose of the
GPL.
Of course you can't copy code and re-use it in a non GPL project. That
would be stealing. I have never heard of a company policy of
programmers aren't allowed to look at GPL code (I have no doubt they
exist) but I'd be pretty certain it is the vast minority.
The GPL exists to stop people stealing code and re-using it in a non
free software based project.
Yes, developers have to be careful not to "copy" GPL'd code!!!!
Learning from it is 100% fine. Unless an algorithm has a patent there
is no reason why a programmer can't write their "own" version of an
algorithm, as long as they don't copy from the GPL'd source code.
> Distribution:
>
> The GPL requires you to publish your *complete* source code so if you
> change a single line you need to publish everything. This creates a
> burden on developers because they need to front any costs due to
> distributing everything. Granted, the source will most likely be small
> and we do have the Archives but it's going to get redundant with every
> Euphoria modification repeating the exact same files over and over
> again.
No, you don't have to distribute the source code. You have to make it
available to users of the software.
It isn't a big burden, how difficult is it to zip up your source
directory and FTP it to a server?
It's actually a huge feature of open source and free software.
> Lack of freedom:
>
> Due mostly to its viral nature GPLed code is more restrictive than
> almost all other open source licenses. Eric S. Raymond, the co-founder
> of the Open Source Initiative, said last year that the GPL is in some
> cases restricting innovation and advocated using the BSD license instead
> of the GPL.
The GPL free's the software for users and protects the software for the
developers.
There are some cases where GPL code causes problems, mostly to do with
closed source device drivers from hardware vendors (and also some DRM
software).
I'm 99.99% sure this won't effect Euphoria!
> Job restrictions:
>
> Some companies forbid their programmers from working on GPLed programs
> due to what they perceive (whether rightly or wrongly) as legal issues
> regarding their code. One example I've heard of is that they feared that
> if their programmer reused his code and he had previously distributed it
> as GPL then their product could be endangered. Usually these companies
> only specify the GPL and similar licenses and allow BSD and X11 licensed
> work. It would suck if someone couldn't contribute to Euphoria due to
> where they work.
You can't copy GPL code and put it in non GPL'd software.
Just like you can't copy propietry code and put in your software!
You must be living under a rock, Open Source is the new growth area of
I.T. Developers with open source experience are in high demand.
> Legal issues:
>
> While so far the GPL has won in the few court cases revolving around it
> I feel that its still untested. If you read the GPL and then other
> license agreements you're shocked by the text of the GPL. The GPL simply
> does not read like a legally binding license which may in fact be a
> detriment to it.
What is shocking about the text of the GPL?
It is written for normal people to read, but is still very rigid in it's
purpose. What reasons would the GPL fail? What are you worried about?
> Moral rights (Legal issues part 2)
>
> Also, the GPL could possibly be broken easily if it was ruled that
> creators have "moral rights" (in the legal sense) in regards to their
> source code. If they do then it would most likely render the GPL
> completely useless since then you'd be able to sue anyone who uses your
> work in a manner you disagree with.
Yes, creators have rights, they have the right to use the GPL or not to.
No one has ever forced anyone to publish code under the GPL.
If you don't want to be bound by the GPL don't release any code under a
GPL license or use any one else's GPL code in your project.
Derek, I have a feeling that my response won't change your mind.
Have a look around at all the GPL projects out there and tell me how
they are suffering under the GPL?
I'm not saying the GPL is the answer for everything.
It is a great license for development tools and languages though.
Have a nice day,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
3. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
(snip GPL argument...)
Let's argue GPL vs LGPL vs whatever in another thread. Not that it hasn't been
argued ad-infititum elsewhere.
Generally, I'm in favor of GPL stuff and Ray makes all of the good points.
However I am not against other licenses either.
Let's move along...
--
"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.
4. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
Ray Smith wrote:
>
>
> You have the situation completely backwards.
> The GPL allows software to stay open and free. The whole purpose of the
> GPL.
Open source is open source no matter what license it uses so long as it stays
distributed. GPL does not magically make code any more open source than any other
license. An author can always close source new versions of their code (so long as
it's all their own) even if it is GPL. Previous versions of the software will
always be open so long as someone distributes them under the terms of their
licenses. This is the same with (almost) every license.
> Of course you can't copy code and re-use it in a non GPL project. That
> would be stealing. I have never heard of a company policy of
> programmers aren't allowed to look at GPL code (I have no doubt they
> exist) but I'd be pretty certain it is the vast minority.
Actually, I'd say it's probably the majority. Most companies are very protective
of their products and don't want anything to jeopardize their control over them.
Microsoft, for example, if I remember correctly, does not allow people in the
open source labs to transfer to another position because they might "taint" the
code. I and many people I know work at places that have similar requirements.
> The GPL exists to stop people stealing code and re-using it in a non
> free software based project.
Yes, but diverging a bit from the topic at hand, that's the main issue in a way.
For all its touting of protecting "freedoms" the GPL is one of the most
restrictive licenses out there. It restricts the use of the program in any . I'm
not saying that all code must be fully open (a programmer has the right to use
whatever license they wish) but it is restricting the code's use. There are other
licenses that allow you to use the code however you wish but keep the source code
open (I mentioned the MPL as an example). Why does non-"free" use need to be
stopped? Why can't people be allowed to use the code however they wish?
> It isn't a big burden, how difficult is it to zip up your source
> directory and FTP it to a server?
> It's actually a huge feature of open source and free software.
Many would disagree since that's been one of the most complained about features
of the GPL recently. The leader of the MEPIS Linux distro said it was the biggest
problem for small distros because it's a massive drain on their resources and
money. Also, the cipherfunk website that made packages for MEPIS and Ubuntu shut
down because they couldn't afford to pay for the hosting of their code. Now, as I
said, this doesn't really effect Euphoria that much if at all (it only effects
things like Linux) but it's still a prominent complaint about the GPL.
> The GPL free's the software for users and protects the software for the
> developers.
> There are some cases where GPL code causes problems, mostly to do with
> closed source device drivers from hardware vendors (and also some DRM
> software).
> I'm 99.99% sure this won't effect Euphoria!
> You can't copy GPL code and put it in non GPL'd software.
> Just like you can't copy propietry code and put in your software!
It'll effect the users who want to use some of the Euphoria code in a project
that is not GPL. It's not even the case of "free" versus "non-free" its the case
of GPL versus non-GPL. I don't use the GPL, I have strong reservations against it
(obviously), but I do a lot of open-source programming using a variety of more
open langauges (MPL, 4-clause BSD, and X11). Why punish those who want to allow
their code to be used anywhere not be able to use the Euphoria code?
> You must be living under a rock, Open Source is the new growth area of
> I.T. Developers with open source experience are in high demand.
Quite true, and I am quite experienced in open source development and
applications and promote it whenever I can. However, I'm attacking the GPL's
notion of "free software", not open source.
> What is shocking about the text of the GPL?
> It is written for normal people to read, but is still very rigid in it's
> purpose. What reasons would the GPL fail? What are you worried about?
Primarily the whole preamble part but there are many places in the text that is
not very ambiguous. I'm worried that having a license that reads like some
philosophical rant might stand up in court. That, and the many ambiguities in the
text (for example, how do you define a "combined work"?)
> Yes, creators have rights, they have the right to use the GPL or not to.
> No one has ever forced anyone to publish code under the GPL.
> If you don't want to be bound by the GPL don't release any code under a
> GPL license or use any one else's GPL code in your project.
You misunderstand. I'm talking about moral rights under the legal definition.
Also, technically if you use GPL code you are in a way being forced into
releasing your code as GPL.
5. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
Not quoting Derek Newhall's excellent post...
While I have sympathies with the GPL for the reasons cited by Ray Smith, the
points brought up by Derek are the reasons that I suggested that RDS release dual
license GPL and commercial versions of the language.
--
"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.
6. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Not quoting Derek Newhall's excellent post...
>
> While I have sympathies with the GPL for the reasons cited by Ray Smith, the
> points brought up by Derek are the reasons that I suggested that RDS release
> dual license GPL and commercial versions of the language.
>
YES! I think Jason's on to something here.
Ken Rhodes
Folding at Home: http://folding.stanford.edu/
100% MicroSoft Free
SuSE Linux 10.0
No AdWare, SpyWare, or Viruses!
Life is Good, 
7. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
Kenneth Rhodes wrote:
> YES! I think Jason's on to something here.
Ahh yes! Dual licensing is an option as well.
The Eiffel language uses a dual license model.
Perhaps Robert would like this kind better.
However since the community will be developing this project, he'll need to share
any assets with all active code submitters and perhaps high council members.
That would only be fair. No?
Regards,
Vincent
8. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
(snip)
I was going to add this to my last post but forgot.
The FSF's list of licenses: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html
The OSI's list of approved licenses: http://opensource.org/licenses/
9. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
> Subject: Re: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
>
>
> posted by: Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
>
> Woah! That is huge news.
>
> This will change everything.
>
> First I'd like to say it shouldn't be opened up as Public
> Domain, where some company could just aquire it as their own.
> There needs to be an open-source license to keep it
> open-source. I think the LGPL would be a decent license like
> Matt said. But people are going to have to vote for which
> license they want. How about a poll people?
>
> This is also the chance to give Euphoria the features it really needs!
>
> 1) Direct variable assignment
> 2) Pre-emptive thread safety
> 4) POSIX compliant threading API
> 5) 64 bit integers; 32 bit integers
> 6) 64 bit interpreters; compilers
> 7) Variable_id(), version() routines
> 8) Expression evalution features
> 9) Microsoft .NET port for Vista
> 10) Better interfacing with C/C++
>
> As for RDS. They can still make money!
>
> 1) Proffessional Euphoria support
>
> 2) Contract programming services
>
> 3) Donations to pay domain costs
> and living expensives.
>
> 4) Hosting more ads (not banners)
> on the Euphoria webpage and
> EUForum.
>
> 5) Continue providing ListFilter
> products and services.
>
> The Euphoria Wiki was a great inititive as well. Most
> open-source projects have wikis to accompany official documentation.
>
> Great move Rob!
>
>
> Regards,
> Vincent
>
Seconding you on every count, and voting for a LGPL license too.
This is indeed a great move. We as a small community will have to learn to
absorb it and put up some sort of road map. Also perhaps discern tasks and
groups of tasks, and assign a few people as responsible for performing,
coordinating and evaluating them. All in keeping with the open source spirit
and ethics.
Congratulations, Rob / RDS !
Perhaps I'll become a bit more involved than I now am ;)
CChris
10. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Not quoting Derek Newhall's excellent post...
>
> While I have sympathies with the GPL for the reasons cited by Ray Smith, the
> points brought up by Derek are the reasons that I suggested that RDS release
> dual license GPL and commercial versions of the language.
>
Well, I would be totally against this.
And Rob has already said he would do the exact opposite.
Quoting his original message:
> I have finally decided to make Euphoria completely
> free of charge, and completely open source.
> Other advantages:
> - since it's free it will gain more users
> - I won't have to waste time on marketing, advertising,
> processing registrations, sending new download instructions
> to people who lost them etc.
> - I (we) won't have to maintain both free and registered versions
> of things
All very good reasons too.
Jeremy
11. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
Jeremy Peterson wrote:
>
> Jason Gade wrote:
> >
> > Not quoting Derek Newhall's excellent post...
> >
> > While I have sympathies with the GPL for the reasons cited by Ray Smith, the
> > points brought up by Derek are the reasons that I suggested that RDS release
> > dual license GPL and commercial versions of the language.
> >
>
> Well, I would be totally against this.
> And Rob has already said he would do the exact opposite.
> Quoting his original message:
> > I have finally decided to make Euphoria completely
> > free of charge, and completely open source.
>
> > Other advantages:
> > - since it's free it will gain more users
> > - I won't have to waste time on marketing, advertising,
> > processing registrations, sending new download instructions
> > to people who lost them etc.
> > - I (we) won't have to maintain both free and registered versions
> > of things
>
> All very good reasons too.
>
> Jeremy
Why would you be against dual-licensing? It would still be just one version.
--
"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.
12. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
- Posted by Jeremy Peterson <ptl99 at hotmail.com>
Sep 20, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 21, 2006
For the same reasons I'm against what Mr. Ryan proposed.
1. Rob already decided about it.
2. I see nothing wrong with his reasons for doing so.
3. I'm too cheap to buy it.:P But really, I think not charging for it will give
a big boost to the number of potential users.
Sheesh, people have been yelling at Mr. Craig to open-source Eu, make it free,
etc. for years, and as soon as he decides to do that nobody wants him to.
Jeremy
13. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
- Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com>
Sep 20, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 21, 2006
Jeremy Peterson wrote:
>
> For the same reasons I'm against what Mr. Ryan proposed.
>
> 1. Rob already decided about it.
> 2. I see nothing wrong with his reasons for doing so.
> 3. I'm too cheap to buy it.:P But really, I think not charging for it will
> give a big boost to the number of potential users.
>
> Sheesh, people have been yelling at Mr. Craig to open-source Eu, make it free,
> etc. for years, and as soon as he decides to do that nobody wants him to.
>
> Jeremy
I'm confused -- where did I suggest that he *not* make it free?
I said he should dual license it. One version of the program, two licenses.
--
"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.
14. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gmail.com>
Sep 20, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 21, 2006
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Jeremy Peterson wrote:
> > ********
> > For the same reasons I'm against what Mr. Ryan proposed.
********
<snip>
> I'm confused -- where did I suggest that he *not* make it free?
Now I'm confused. Did you change your name?
Matt Lewis
15. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
- Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com>
Sep 20, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 21, 2006
Matt Lewis wrote:
>
> Jason Gade wrote:
> >
> > Jeremy Peterson wrote:
> > > ********
> > > For the same reasons I'm against what Mr. Ryan proposed.
> ********
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'm confused -- where did I suggest that he *not* make it free?
>
> Now I'm confused. Did you change your name?
>
> Matt Lewis
I thought you were replying to this:
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Jeremy Peterson wrote:
> >
> > Jason Gade wrote:
> > >
> > > Not quoting Derek Newhall's excellent post...
> > >
> > > While I have sympathies with the GPL for the reasons cited by Ray Smith,
> > > the
> > > points brought up by Derek are the reasons that I suggested that RDS
> > > release
> > > dual license GPL and commercial versions of the language.
> > >
> >
> > Well, I would be totally against this.
> > And Rob has already said he would do the exact opposite.
> > Quoting his original message:
> > > I have finally decided to make Euphoria completely
> > > free of charge, and completely open source.
> >
> > > Other advantages:
> > > - since it's free it will gain more users
> > > - I won't have to waste time on marketing, advertising,
> > > processing registrations, sending new download instructions
> > > to people who lost them etc.
> > > - I (we) won't have to maintain both free and registered versions
> > > of things
> >
> > All very good reasons too.
> >
> > Jeremy
>
> Why would you be against dual-licensing? It would still be just one version.
If not, then I apologize for being confused.
--
"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.
--
"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.
16. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
- Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk>
Sep 22, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 23, 2006
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:55:43 -0700, Robert Craig
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>I just have to decide on the license (still mulling it over),
That's as a good an excuse as any to add to this discussion...
Rob has forced my hand partly to announce this here, before anything
appears on the RDS site. I hope this is not taken as being too rude;
please follow the link before replying to this message. I had hoped
that a bit of healthy competition would improve sales all round, not
that this is a significant threat or anything.
Announcement: Alpha release of Positive.
Positive is a new hybrid compiler/interpreter compatible with RDS
Euphoria. There are over 60 working test programs, including all the
(gui) demos that came with Arwen and one from win32lib. Positive is
windows-only and at the moment significantly slower than Eu, no
surprises there.
Users of Edita will be pleased, nay shocked, to learn that I have seen
it flicker into life atop Positive, albeit briefly, and after an awful
long compile phase (~15*2.5). The runtime fares better but still is
not quite as fast or as stable as exw.exe, and while usable, obviously
not recommended for serious work, yet.
See http:\\www.palacebuilders.co.uk\Positive.htm for more details.
The licence model is:
* Rebuilds of open source front end on full speed back-end
permitted.
* The modified compiler sources may be freely re-distributed.
* A hardware signature (ie cpuid) is used to prohibit the release of
closed-source compilers. However there is no bar to automatically
compiling re-distributed sources as part of installation.
* The back-end is closed source and implements the encrypted exe
build.
I personally believe this would be a better route for Rob to take,
however it is of course his decision. The vast majority of changes
users might wish to make to Eu are in the front-end, not the stable
back_end. Positive uses the simple check of "does il contain opBind or
opInterp?" to trigger the above behaviour (deep inside opBind itself).
Note that following Rob's announcement, a planned registration
mechanism to permit distribution of (non-compiler) executables is now
on hold, as is any possible option to sub-licence modified compilers.
But it should work locally.
Having multiple open source compilers will be headache enough;
permitting and in fact encouraging multiple closed source compilers is
a backward step imo, as is abandoning the entire shroud concept.
One alternative might be to open source the Linux and possibly DOS
versions only, which ought to more than halve Rob's testing overheads.
As others have previously said I would be quite concerned and rather
saddened to see Rob lose all financial interest in Euphoria.
Regards,
Pete
PS Rob: if interested, mail me privately for more info about how I've
used cpuid; as I hope I've made clear I believe I would stand to gain
by sharing that with you, uncredited. Nothing particularly tricky.
17. RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
- Posted by Al Getz <Xaxo at aol.com>
Sep 22, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 23, 2006
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:55:43 -0700, Robert Craig
> <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>
> >I just have to decide on the license (still mulling it over),
>
> That's as a good an excuse as any to add to this discussion...
> Rob has forced my hand partly to announce this here, before anything
> appears on the RDS site. I hope this is not taken as being too rude;
> please follow the link before replying to this message. I had hoped
> that a bit of healthy competition would improve sales all round, not
> that this is a significant threat or anything.
>
> Announcement: Alpha release of Positive.
>
> Positive is a new hybrid compiler/interpreter compatible with RDS
> Euphoria. There are over 60 working test programs, including all the
> (gui) demos that came with Arwen and one from win32lib. Positive is
> windows-only and at the moment significantly slower than Eu, no
> surprises there.
>
> Users of Edita will be pleased, nay shocked, to learn that I have seen
> it flicker into life atop Positive, albeit briefly, and after an awful
> long compile phase (~15*2.5). The runtime fares better but still is
> not quite as fast or as stable as exw.exe, and while usable, obviously
> not recommended for serious work, yet.
>
> See http:\\www.palacebuilders.co.uk\Positive.htm for more details.
>
> The licence model is:
> * Rebuilds of open source front end on full speed back-end
> permitted.
> * The modified compiler sources may be freely re-distributed.
> * A hardware signature (ie cpuid) is used to prohibit the release of
> closed-source compilers. However there is no bar to automatically
> compiling re-distributed sources as part of installation.
> * The back-end is closed source and implements the encrypted exe
> build.
>
> I personally believe this would be a better route for Rob to take,
> however it is of course his decision. The vast majority of changes
> users might wish to make to Eu are in the front-end, not the stable
> back_end. Positive uses the simple check of "does il contain opBind or
> opInterp?" to trigger the above behaviour (deep inside opBind itself).
> Note that following Rob's announcement, a planned registration
> mechanism to permit distribution of (non-compiler) executables is now
> on hold, as is any possible option to sub-licence modified compilers.
> But it should work locally.
>
> Having multiple open source compilers will be headache enough;
> permitting and in fact encouraging multiple closed source compilers is
> a backward step imo, as is abandoning the entire shroud concept.
>
> One alternative might be to open source the Linux and possibly DOS
> versions only, which ought to more than halve Rob's testing overheads.
>
> As others have previously said I would be quite concerned and rather
> saddened to see Rob lose all financial interest in Euphoria.
>
> Regards,
> Pete
> PS Rob: if interested, mail me privately for more info about how I've
> used cpuid; as I hope I've made clear I believe I would stand to gain
> by sharing that with you, uncredited. Nothing particularly tricky.
>
>
Hi there Pete,
Sounds very interesting. Are you saying you dont want to go
open source with your interpreter? Just wondering, what
kind of license do you want for Open Eu ?
Also, couldnt get to your link,,,something wrong maybe?
Take care,
Al
E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria!
My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's"
From "Black Knight":
"I can live with losing the good fight,
but i can not live without fighting it".
"Well on second thought, maybe not."
