1. My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Hello again,
In this case
there has already been a precedence set...code has already been
contributed with the authors setting their own standards for
how the code THEY submit should be used.
I see no reason why this should be changed, and so if someone
wants to contribute their own interpreter, for example,
they should be able to specify their own requirements just
as in the past with other contributed code.
Most people only ask that their name be mentioned in the
derived works anyway. If others want to ask for more,
then they have to realize that their code *may* not be used
at all, for anything. If they dont ask for more, then they
have to realize that their code may be used as part of a
project that makes money and they dont get any of it, but
then how would the profit be divided anyway, especially if
there were more than one contributor? That would get hairy.
Public domain is the only way to go, and if contributors
want to post their more specific demands on *their* contributions
then let them do so. If they want to modify the source and
contribute that, then let *them* decide what they will allow
on their code, as has always been done in the past.
This gives the secondary author the right to choose any licence
they care to, and puts no demand on Open Eu. If they dont want
*their* code to be purely public domain, then they can specify
whatever they want. If they dont want to release it, then
they wont anyway.
This of course means that Open Eu must be released with the
free'est licence possible, so that no one has any reason
not to use it!
I, however, also believe that it should be mandatory to have to
mention in an about box and in the doc's that Open Eu was used
either all or in part to build the project.
Also, if anyone thinks ALL software is some day going to magically
become free then all i ask is for proof: get Microsoft to start
giving away ALL of their software for free. When that happens,
i will probably agree to give all my software away for free
AND ALSO with the requirement that anything they use it for
must be free also.
2. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Al Getz wrote:
>
> Hello again,
>
> In this case
> there has already been a precedence set...code has already been
> contributed with the authors setting their own standards for
> how the code THEY submit should be used.
>
> I see no reason why this should be changed, and so if someone
> wants to contribute their own interpreter, for example,
> they should be able to specify their own requirements just
> as in the past with other contributed code.
>
> Most people only ask that their name be mentioned in the
> derived works anyway. If others want to ask for more,
> then they have to realize that their code *may* not be used
> at all, for anything. If they dont ask for more, then they
> have to realize that their code may be used as part of a
> project that makes money and they dont get any of it, but
> then how would the profit be divided anyway, especially if
> there were more than one contributor? That would get hairy.
>
> Public domain is the only way to go, and if contributors
> want to post their more specific demands on *their* contributions
> then let them do so. If they want to modify the source and
> contribute that, then let *them* decide what they will allow
> on their code, as has always been done in the past.
> This gives the secondary author the right to choose any licence
> they care to, and puts no demand on Open Eu. If they dont want
> *their* code to be purely public domain, then they can specify
> whatever they want. If they dont want to release it, then
> they wont anyway.
>
> This of course means that Open Eu must be released with the
> free'est licence possible, so that no one has any reason
> not to use it!
>
> I, however, also believe that it should be mandatory to have to
> mention in an about box and in the doc's that Open Eu was used
> either all or in part to build the project.
>
> Also, if anyone thinks ALL software is some day going to magically
> become free then all i ask is for proof: get Microsoft to start
> giving away ALL of their software for free. When that happens,
> i will probably agree to give all my software away for free
> AND ALSO with the requirement that anything they use it for
> must be free also.
Hi Al,
One of the main points you are missing is that many Open Source Licesnes ensure
that all derived works stay open source.
This means that all work done "in the euphoria system" will stay open forever.
What happens if some bright spark makes a dozen really great changes to Euphoria
and gets lots of people using it ... but doesn't open source his code.
All of a sudden we are back to where we are now .. with 1 person controlling
everything. (Obviously not quiet since anyone else is able to make the same
improvements)
Licenses such as the LGPL force all derived works to be open source ... meaning
the open future of Euphoria is ensured ... while allowing anyone to write open or
closed sourced apps "using" Euphoria.
I'm all for putting a license on Euphoria which forces it to be open forever.
I don't see why people are worried about not allowing the actual Euphoria source
code to be used in closed source apps.
You can still use all of Euphoria to write as many apps as you want, sell them
open or closed source to whoever you want to.
You just can't change Euphoria itself and sell it to someone without giving them
your source code.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
3. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Ray Smith wrote:
<snip>
> Hi Al,
>
> One of the main points you are missing is that many Open Source Licesnes
> ensure
> that all derived works stay open source.
> This means that all work done "in the euphoria system" will stay open forever.
> What happens if some bright spark makes a dozen really great changes to
> Euphoria
> and gets lots of people using it ... but doesn't open source his code.
> All of a sudden we are back to where we are now .. with 1 person controlling
> everything. (Obviously not quiet since anyone else is able to make the same
> improvements)
> Licenses such as the LGPL force all derived works to be open source ...
> meaning
> the open future of Euphoria is ensured
I consider this point important.
> ... while allowing anyone to write open or closed sourced apps "using"
> Euphoria.
I consider this point important, too.
> I'm all for putting a license on Euphoria which forces it to be open forever.
>
> I don't see why people are worried about not allowing the actual Euphoria
> source
> code to be used in closed source apps.
> You can still use all of Euphoria to write as many apps as you want, sell them
> open or closed source to whoever you want to.
> You just can't change Euphoria itself and sell it to someone without giving
> them your source code.
I absolutely agree with you, Ray. Although I don't know the details of
all those licenses that have been mentioned here recently, I think the
two points above are exactly the bottom line.
Maybe we can think of an open programming language somehow like a
collection of mathematical formulas or so. It's important that it's
known in public. Scientists normally also publish their findings, and
this contributes to progress of education and knowledge in the world.
It's important, that Pythagoras' theorem and many other stuff is "Open
Source". Nevertheless, people can use this knowledge to create a product
and then sell this product. (And other people can use the same knowledge
to create another product and then give their product away for free, if
they like ...)
Regards,
Juergen
--
Please excuse my flawed English. My native language is Euphoria.
4. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Ray Smith wrote:
> One of the main points you are missing is that many Open Source Licesnes
> ensure
> that all derived works stay open source.
> This means that all work done "in the euphoria system" will stay open forever.
> What happens if some bright spark makes a dozen really great changes to
> Euphoria
> and gets lots of people using it ... but doesn't open source his code.
> All of a sudden we are back to where we are now .. with 1 person controlling
> everything. (Obviously not quiet since anyone else is able to make the same
> improvements)
> Licenses such as the LGPL force all derived works to be open source ...
> meaning
> the open future of Euphoria is ensured ... while allowing anyone to write open
> or closed sourced apps "using" Euphoria.
>
> I'm all for putting a license on Euphoria which forces it to be open forever.
>
> I don't see why people are worried about not allowing the actual Euphoria
> source
> code to be used in closed source apps.
> You can still use all of Euphoria to write as many apps as you want, sell them
> open or closed source to whoever you want to.
> You just can't change Euphoria itself and sell it to someone without giving
> them your source code.
Has any open-source license ever been tested in any court ?
Does it have the same weight of enforcement in every country ?
Euphoria is used through out the world.
What are the legal obligations of someone who develops the improvements.
If the users find that open-source is not exactly what they
thought it was there will be no way to go back to the way it
is now.
Bernie
My files in archive:
WMOTOR, XMOTOR, W32ENGIN, MIXEDLIB, EU_ENGIN, WIN32ERU, WIN32API
Can be downloaded here:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
5. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Al Getz wrote:
>
> Hello again,
>
> In this case
> there has already been a precedence set...code has already been
> contributed with the authors setting their own standards for
> how the code THEY submit should be used.
>
> I see no reason why this should be changed, and so if someone
> wants to contribute their own interpreter, for example,
> they should be able to specify their own requirements just
> as in the past with other contributed code.
>
> Most people only ask that their name be mentioned in the
> derived works anyway. If others want to ask for more,
> then they have to realize that their code *may* not be used
> at all, for anything. If they dont ask for more, then they
> have to realize that their code may be used as part of a
> project that makes money and they dont get any of it, but
> then how would the profit be divided anyway, especially if
> there were more than one contributor? That would get hairy.
>
> Public domain is the only way to go, and if contributors
> want to post their more specific demands on *their* contributions
> then let them do so. If they want to modify the source and
> contribute that, then let *them* decide what they will allow
> on their code, as has always been done in the past.
> This gives the secondary author the right to choose any licence
> they care to, and puts no demand on Open Eu. If they dont want
> *their* code to be purely public domain, then they can specify
> whatever they want. If they dont want to release it, then
> they wont anyway.
>
> This of course means that Open Eu must be released with the
> free'est licence possible, so that no one has any reason
> not to use it!
>
> I, however, also believe that it should be mandatory to have to
> mention in an about box and in the doc's that Open Eu was used
> either all or in part to build the project.
>
> Also, if anyone thinks ALL software is some day going to magically
> become free then all i ask is for proof: get Microsoft to start
> giving away ALL of their software for free. When that happens,
> i will probably agree to give all my software away for free
> AND ALSO with the requirement that anything they use it for
> must be free also.
That is actually a pretty good argument for having the code be public domain.
However, the code could be X11 licensed with almost the same effect (the X11
license just also explicitly tells you your rights to the code and protects the
original creator against legal harm) or even 3-clause BSD (same as the X11
license except you can't use the author's name in advertisements). The primary
argument against public domain is that it removes Rob's distinction as creator of
the code and people feel that that is unfair to his hard work.
6. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Ray Smith wrote:
>
> Al Getz wrote:
> >
> > Hello again,
> >
> > In this case
> > there has already been a precedence set...code has already been
> > contributed with the authors setting their own standards for
> > how the code THEY submit should be used.
> >
> > I see no reason why this should be changed, and so if someone
> > wants to contribute their own interpreter, for example,
> > they should be able to specify their own requirements just
> > as in the past with other contributed code.
> >
> > Most people only ask that their name be mentioned in the
> > derived works anyway. If others want to ask for more,
> > then they have to realize that their code *may* not be used
> > at all, for anything. If they dont ask for more, then they
> > have to realize that their code may be used as part of a
> > project that makes money and they dont get any of it, but
> > then how would the profit be divided anyway, especially if
> > there were more than one contributor? That would get hairy.
> >
> > Public domain is the only way to go, and if contributors
> > want to post their more specific demands on *their* contributions
> > then let them do so. If they want to modify the source and
> > contribute that, then let *them* decide what they will allow
> > on their code, as has always been done in the past.
> > This gives the secondary author the right to choose any licence
> > they care to, and puts no demand on Open Eu. If they dont want
> > *their* code to be purely public domain, then they can specify
> > whatever they want. If they dont want to release it, then
> > they wont anyway.
> >
> > This of course means that Open Eu must be released with the
> > free'est licence possible, so that no one has any reason
> > not to use it!
> >
> > I, however, also believe that it should be mandatory to have to
> > mention in an about box and in the doc's that Open Eu was used
> > either all or in part to build the project.
> >
> > Also, if anyone thinks ALL software is some day going to magically
> > become free then all i ask is for proof: get Microsoft to start
> > giving away ALL of their software for free. When that happens,
> > i will probably agree to give all my software away for free
> > AND ALSO with the requirement that anything they use it for
> > must be free also.
>
> Hi Al,
>
> One of the main points you are missing is that many Open Source Licesnes
> ensure
> that all derived works stay open source.
> This means that all work done "in the euphoria system" will stay open forever.
> What happens if some bright spark makes a dozen really great changes to
> Euphoria
> and gets lots of people using it ... but doesn't open source his code.
> All of a sudden we are back to where we are now .. with 1 person controlling
> everything. (Obviously not quiet since anyone else is able to make the same
> improvements)
> Licenses such as the LGPL force all derived works to be open source ...
> meaning
> the open future of Euphoria is ensured ... while allowing anyone to write open
> or closed sourced apps "using" Euphoria.
>
> I'm all for putting a license on Euphoria which forces it to be open forever.
>
> I don't see why people are worried about not allowing the actual Euphoria
> source
> code to be used in closed source apps.
> You can still use all of Euphoria to write as many apps as you want, sell them
> open or closed source to whoever you want to.
> You just can't change Euphoria itself and sell it to someone without giving
> them your source code.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ray Smith
> <a href="http://RaymondSmith.com">http://RaymondSmith.com</a>
Hi there Ray,
I think i understood before too, but thanks for clearing the slate.
If i understand you correctly, you are only trying to defend the
rights with the Eu Language Source itself, not ordinary programs
written to do something else. But i feel the same way with that
source too. If you restrict anything about it then you might
stop someone creative from working on a future version. If
someone were that bright they would want to at least have the
last word on their hard work, exactly the same as what is happening
now. They would want to reserve the right to say "ok, i'll open
mine too", or, "no, i want to wait until im sure".
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."
7. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> Ray Smith wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Hi Al,
> >
> > One of the main points you are missing is that many Open Source Licesnes
> > ensure
> > that all derived works stay open source.
> > This means that all work done "in the euphoria system" will stay open
> > forever.
> > What happens if some bright spark makes a dozen really great changes to
> > Euphoria
> > and gets lots of people using it ... but doesn't open source his code.
> > All of a sudden we are back to where we are now .. with 1 person controlling
> > everything. (Obviously not quiet since anyone else is able to make the same
> > improvements)
> > Licenses such as the LGPL force all derived works to be open source ...
> > meaning
> > the open future of Euphoria is ensured
>
> I consider this point important.
>
> > ... while allowing anyone to write open or closed sourced apps "using"
> > Euphoria.
>
> I consider this point important, too.
>
> > I'm all for putting a license on Euphoria which forces it to be open
> > forever.
> >
> > I don't see why people are worried about not allowing the actual Euphoria
> > source
> > code to be used in closed source apps.
> > You can still use all of Euphoria to write as many apps as you want, sell
> > them
> > open or closed source to whoever you want to.
> > You just can't change Euphoria itself and sell it to someone without giving
> > them your source code.
>
> I absolutely agree with you, Ray. Although I don't know the details of
> all those licenses that have been mentioned here recently, I think the
> two points above are exactly the bottom line.
>
> Maybe we can think of an open programming language somehow like a
> collection of mathematical formulas or so. It's important that it's
> known in public. Scientists normally also publish their findings, and
> this contributes to progress of education and knowledge in the world.
> It's important, that Pythagoras' theorem and many other stuff is "Open
> Source". Nevertheless, people can use this knowledge to create a product
> and then sell this product. (And other people can use the same knowledge
> to create another product and then give their product away for free, if
> they like ...)
>
> Regards,
> Juergen
>
> --
> Please excuse my flawed English. My native language is Euphoria.
Hi there Juergen,
I dont think it's quite the same, because most scientists are funded
by some grant, whereas most contributors are doing everything on
their own time.
Also, not all formulas are made public domain, and certainly not
all chemical formulas. In fact, with some formulas it's very
important that they are not known in public.
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."
8. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
D. Newhall wrote:
>
> Al Getz wrote:
> >
> > Hello again,
> >
> > In this case
> > there has already been a precedence set...code has already been
> > contributed with the authors setting their own standards for
> > how the code THEY submit should be used.
> >
> > I see no reason why this should be changed, and so if someone
> > wants to contribute their own interpreter, for example,
> > they should be able to specify their own requirements just
> > as in the past with other contributed code.
> >
> > Most people only ask that their name be mentioned in the
> > derived works anyway. If others want to ask for more,
> > then they have to realize that their code *may* not be used
> > at all, for anything. If they dont ask for more, then they
> > have to realize that their code may be used as part of a
> > project that makes money and they dont get any of it, but
> > then how would the profit be divided anyway, especially if
> > there were more than one contributor? That would get hairy.
> >
> > Public domain is the only way to go, and if contributors
> > want to post their more specific demands on *their* contributions
> > then let them do so. If they want to modify the source and
> > contribute that, then let *them* decide what they will allow
> > on their code, as has always been done in the past.
> > This gives the secondary author the right to choose any licence
> > they care to, and puts no demand on Open Eu. If they dont want
> > *their* code to be purely public domain, then they can specify
> > whatever they want. If they dont want to release it, then
> > they wont anyway.
> >
> > This of course means that Open Eu must be released with the
> > free'est licence possible, so that no one has any reason
> > not to use it!
> >
> > I, however, also believe that it should be mandatory to have to
> > mention in an about box and in the doc's that Open Eu was used
> > either all or in part to build the project.
> >
> > Also, if anyone thinks ALL software is some day going to magically
> > become free then all i ask is for proof: get Microsoft to start
> > giving away ALL of their software for free. When that happens,
> > i will probably agree to give all my software away for free
> > AND ALSO with the requirement that anything they use it for
> > must be free also.
>
> That is actually a pretty good argument for having the code be public domain.
> However, the code could be X11 licensed with almost the same effect (the X11
> license just also explicitly tells you your rights to the code and protects
> the original creator against legal harm) or even 3-clause BSD (same as the X11
> license except you can't use the author's name in advertisements). The primary
> argument against public domain is that it removes Rob's distinction as creator
> of the code and people feel that that is unfair to his hard work.
Hi there,
Yes i agree that Robs work should be reflected in any project that
comes out of the source.
BTW, what does the "D." stand for?
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."
9. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
- Posted by Ray Smith <ray at RaymondSmith.com>
Sep 22, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 23, 2006
Al Getz wrote:
[snip]
> If
> someone were that bright they would want to at least have the
> last word on their hard work, exactly the same as what is happening
> now. They would want to reserve the right to say "ok, i'll open
> mine too", or, "no, i want to wait until im sure".
The libabry of the Euphoria source code will be displayed up front.
Everyone will know what they can and can't do with it.
If everyone knows up fron they can't change Euphoria and make it into a closed
source app they may wish not to put there hard work into it.
This would be sad ... but is the "best" option for the long term survival of
Euphoria.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
10. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
- Posted by Ray Smith <ray at RaymondSmith.com>
Sep 22, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 23, 2006
Al Getz wrote:
> I dont think it's quite the same, because most scientists are funded
> by some grant, whereas most contributors are doing everything on
> their own time.
> Also, not all formulas are made public domain, and certainly not
> all chemical formulas. In fact, with some formulas it's very
> important that they are not known in public.
And this is why Rob is being so generious.
Rob is donating years of work, a lifelong project to all of us.
It's a huge donation.
And, I persoanlly would like the future of Euphoria to stay open for everyone to
share in the future.
Except for the shrouding (which I beleive can be handled by a public
encyption?), I don't know of anything in Euphoria which should be kept secret??
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://raymondSmith.com
11. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
- Posted by Ray Smith <ray at RaymondSmith.com>
Sep 22, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 23, 2006
Bernie Ryan wrote:
> Has any open-source license ever been tested in any court ?
>
> Does it have the same weight of enforcement in every country ?
>
> Euphoria is used through out the world.
>
> What are the legal obligations of someone who develops the improvements.
>
> If the users find that open-source is not exactly what they
> thought it was there will be no way to go back to the way it
> is now.
There is no reason why Rob can't keep a copy of everything just before he open
sources it.
If he wants, he can do anything he wants with it.
He can sell it, make new closed source versions of it.
I don't beleive anyone else should have the right to do that.
Yes, some open source licesnes have been tested in court, www.groklaw.org I
think is the sire you are interested in.
Look at some of the open source projects out there and tell me we will have more
problems them them??
Linux, MySQL, OpenOffice, etc etc
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
P.S. I'm off for the weekend, see you all next week ;)
12. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
- Posted by Jeremy Peterson <ptl99 at hotmail.com>
Sep 22, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 23, 2006
Ray Smith wrote:
>
> Al Getz wrote:
> >
*snipped Al's post*
>
> Hi Al,
>
> One of the main points you are missing is that many Open Source Licesnes
> ensure
> that all derived works stay open source.
> This means that all work done "in the euphoria system" will stay open forever.
> What happens if some bright spark makes a dozen really great changes to
> Euphoria
> and gets lots of people using it ... but doesn't open source his code.
> All of a sudden we are back to where we are now .. with 1 person controlling
> everything. (Obviously not quiet since anyone else is able to make the same
> improvements)
> Licenses such as the LGPL force all derived works to be open source ...
> meaning
> the open future of Euphoria is ensured ... while allowing anyone to write open
> or closed sourced apps "using" Euphoria.
>
> I'm all for putting a license on Euphoria which forces it to be open forever.
>
> I don't see why people are worried about not allowing the actual Euphoria
> source
> code to be used in closed source apps.
> You can still use all of Euphoria to write as many apps as you want, sell them
> open or closed source to whoever you want to.
> You just can't change Euphoria itself and sell it to someone without giving
> them your source code.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ray Smith
I just had to reply to this.
What about this bright young spark? What if he does make a few dozen great
changes so people use it and buy it from him? That would be fine with me.
All of a sudden - nothing would happen. Some people would buy it from him(big
maybe), most probably wouldn't.
If people want to buy a modified version of Euphoria that has features they like
that they can't get anywhere else, sounds okay to me.
There would still be the PD version of Euphoria available, so what's the prob
lem?
Jeremy
13. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
- Posted by Al Getz <Xaxo at aol.com>
Sep 22, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 23, 2006
Ray Smith wrote:
>
> Al Getz wrote:
> [snip]
> > If
> > someone were that bright they would want to at least have the
> > last word on their hard work, exactly the same as what is happening
> > now. They would want to reserve the right to say "ok, i'll open
> > mine too", or, "no, i want to wait until im sure".
>
> The libabry of the Euphoria source code will be displayed up front.
> Everyone will know what they can and can't do with it.
> If everyone knows up fron they can't change Euphoria and make it into a closed
> source app they may wish not to put there hard work into it.
> This would be sad ... but is the "best" option for the long term survival of
> Euphoria.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ray Smith
> <a href="http://RaymondSmith.com">http://RaymondSmith.com</a>
Hello again Ray,
Of course they will know up front and know how to make their own
decisions, but that's certainly not the point. The point is
whether or not to hinder their decision to NOT use the source
because then they would be wasting their time.
You've stated what you think is the best option but havent shown
any reasoning behind your opinion. If someone thinks that someday
maybe they might make some money with a closed version and they
actually do sell it and people like it and buy it that certainly
looks like survival to me.
I'd like to create my own version too, although it would be
significantly different than Euphoria. I'd like to be able to
start with the Open Source Euphoria though and keep it closed
for a while at least. Now the licence can either help me get
a head start or i have to start from scratch...either way i get
my own closed version regardless of what license is selected.
So does it help to select a too restrictive license? It doesnt
help me and it doesnt help Euphoria. It also doesnt help the
current Euphoria users who just might like my version if they
cant get it because i didnt write it because i dont want to go
open source right away (reserving the right to choose later on).
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."
14. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Jeremy Peterson wrote:
>
> Ray Smith wrote:
> >
> > Al Getz wrote:
> > >
> *snipped Al's post*
> >
> > Hi Al,
> >
> > One of the main points you are missing is that many Open Source Licesnes
> > ensure
> > that all derived works stay open source.
> > This means that all work done "in the euphoria system" will stay open
> > forever.
> > What happens if some bright spark makes a dozen really great changes to
> > Euphoria
> > and gets lots of people using it ... but doesn't open source his code.
> > All of a sudden we are back to where we are now .. with 1 person controlling
> > everything. (Obviously not quiet since anyone else is able to make the same
> > improvements)
> > Licenses such as the LGPL force all derived works to be open source ...
> > meaning
> > the open future of Euphoria is ensured ... while allowing anyone to write
> > open
> > or closed sourced apps "using" Euphoria.
> >
> > I'm all for putting a license on Euphoria which forces it to be open
> > forever.
> >
> > I don't see why people are worried about not allowing the actual Euphoria
> > source
> > code to be used in closed source apps.
> > You can still use all of Euphoria to write as many apps as you want, sell
> > them
> > open or closed source to whoever you want to.
> > You just can't change Euphoria itself and sell it to someone without giving
> > them your source code.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ray Smith
>
> I just had to reply to this.
> What about this bright young spark? What if he does make a few dozen great
> changes so people use it and buy it from him? That would be fine with me.
>
> All of a sudden - nothing would happen. Some people would buy it from him(big
> maybe), most probably wouldn't.
>
> If people want to buy a modified version of Euphoria that has features they
> like that they can't get anywhere else, sounds okay to me.
>
> There would still be the PD version of Euphoria available, so what's the prob
> lem?
>
> Jeremy
Hi there Jeremy,
I agree. I hope these points get through 
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."
15. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
>
> Has any open-source license ever been tested in any court ?
Hot off the presses - short answer is yes, it has been upheld
more than once:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060922134536257
Ken Rhodes
Folding at Home: http://folding.stanford.edu/
100% MicroSoft Free
SuSE Linux 10.0
No AdWare, SpyWare, or Viruses!
Life is Good,
16. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Al Getz wrote:
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
>> Ray Smith wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Hi Al,
>>>
>>> One of the main points you are missing is that many Open Source Licesnes
>>> ensure
>>> that all derived works stay open source.
>>> This means that all work done "in the euphoria system" will stay open
>>> forever.
>>> What happens if some bright spark makes a dozen really great changes to
>>> Euphoria
>>> and gets lots of people using it ... but doesn't open source his code.
>>> All of a sudden we are back to where we are now .. with 1 person controlling
>>> everything. (Obviously not quiet since anyone else is able to make the same
>>> improvements)
>>> Licenses such as the LGPL force all derived works to be open source ...
>>> meaning
>>> the open future of Euphoria is ensured
>>
>> I consider this point important.
>>
>>> ... while allowing anyone to write open or closed sourced apps "using"
>>> Euphoria.
>>
>> I consider this point important, too.
>>
>>> I'm all for putting a license on Euphoria which forces it to be open
>>> forever.
>>>
>>> I don't see why people are worried about not allowing the actual Euphoria
>>> source
>>> code to be used in closed source apps.
>>> You can still use all of Euphoria to write as many apps as you want, sell
>>> them
>>> open or closed source to whoever you want to.
>>> You just can't change Euphoria itself and sell it to someone without giving
>>> them your source code.
>>
>> I absolutely agree with you, Ray. Although I don't know the details of
>> all those licenses that have been mentioned here recently, I think the
>> two points above are exactly the bottom line.
>>
>> Maybe we can think of an open programming language somehow like a
>> collection of mathematical formulas or so. It's important that it's
>> known in public. Scientists normally also publish their findings, and
>> this contributes to progress of education and knowledge in the world.
>> It's important, that Pythagoras' theorem and many other stuff is "Open
>> Source". Nevertheless, people can use this knowledge to create a product
>> and then sell this product. (And other people can use the same knowledge
>> to create another product and then give their product away for free, if
>> they like ...)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Juergen
>
>
> Hi there Juergen,
>
> I dont think it's quite the same, because most scientists are funded
> by some grant, whereas most contributors are doing everything on
> their own time.
Rob has already decided to make Euphoria free and Open Source. And
that's only his decision anyway. And of course -- as people have
mentioned here repeatedly -- what Rob does is a huge donation to the
public.
I still will like to give money to RDS (or the Open Euphoria development
team) either way, and others have written that, too. And maybe e.g. a
univerity will become interested in supporting further development of
Open Euphoria. There are several possibilities ...
In my previous post, I didn't write about financial aspects at all, but
we were talking about the license. Of course, the license should allow
e.g. Euphoria to be further developed at a university.
> Also, not all formulas are made public domain,
I did not say that all formulas are made public domain. Argueing against
something that I never wrote doesn't make too much sense.
I was trying to say, that making certain knowledge available in public
is an important contribution to progress in the world. I deliberately
chose Pythagoras' theorem as example. I could have mentioned dozens of
other mathematical theorems, but you can look in a math textbook
yourself, if you want.
> and certainly not
> all chemical formulas. In fact, with some formulas it's very
> important that they are not known in public.
Hm?? What has this got to do with my previous post, and with the license
of Open Euphoria? And are you trying to say, that making Euphoria Open
Source would be dangerous, or what?
Regards,
Juergen
17. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Hi again Juergen,
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> Al Getz wrote:
>
> > Juergen Luethje wrote:
> >
> >> Ray Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> Hi Al,
> >>>
> >>> One of the main points you are missing is that many Open Source Licesnes
> >>> ensure
> >>> that all derived works stay open source.
> >>> This means that all work done "in the euphoria system" will stay open
> >>> forever.
> >>> What happens if some bright spark makes a dozen really great changes to
> >>> Euphoria
> >>> and gets lots of people using it ... but doesn't open source his code.
> >>> All of a sudden we are back to where we are now .. with 1 person
> >>> controlling
> >>> everything. (Obviously not quiet since anyone else is able to make the
> >>> same
> >>> improvements)
> >>> Licenses such as the LGPL force all derived works to be open source ...
> >>> meaning
> >>> the open future of Euphoria is ensured
> >>
> >> I consider this point important.
> >>
> >>> ... while allowing anyone to write open or closed sourced apps "using"
> >>> Euphoria.
> >>
> >> I consider this point important, too.
> >>
> >>> I'm all for putting a license on Euphoria which forces it to be open
> >>> forever.
> >>>
> >>> I don't see why people are worried about not allowing the actual Euphoria
> >>> source
> >>> code to be used in closed source apps.
> >>> You can still use all of Euphoria to write as many apps as you want, sell
> >>> them
> >>> open or closed source to whoever you want to.
> >>> You just can't change Euphoria itself and sell it to someone without
> >>> giving
> >>> them your source code.
> >>
> >> I absolutely agree with you, Ray. Although I don't know the details of
> >> all those licenses that have been mentioned here recently, I think the
> >> two points above are exactly the bottom line.
> >>
> >> Maybe we can think of an open programming language somehow like a
> >> collection of mathematical formulas or so. It's important that it's
> >> known in public. Scientists normally also publish their findings, and
> >> this contributes to progress of education and knowledge in the world.
> >> It's important, that Pythagoras' theorem and many other stuff is "Open
> >> Source". Nevertheless, people can use this knowledge to create a product
> >> and then sell this product. (And other people can use the same knowledge
> >> to create another product and then give their product away for free, if
> >> they like ...)
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Juergen
> >
> >
> > Hi there Juergen,
> >
> > I dont think it's quite the same, because most scientists are funded
> > by some grant, whereas most contributors are doing everything on
> > their own time.
>
> Rob has already decided to make Euphoria free and Open Source. And
> that's only his decision anyway. And of course -- as people have
> mentioned here repeatedly -- what Rob does is a huge donation to the
> public.
Yes, we know that, but what we dont know is what kind of License will
be chosen.
> > Also, not all formulas are made public domain,
>
> I did not say that all formulas are made public domain. Argueing against
> something that I never wrote doesn't make too much sense.
I was not argueing, but making a statement.
>
> I was trying to say, that making certain knowledge available in public
> is an important contribution to progress in the world. I deliberately
> chose Pythagoras' theorem as example. I could have mentioned dozens of
> other mathematical theorems, but you can look in a math textbook
> yourself, if you want.
>
> > and certainly not
> > all chemical formulas. In fact, with some formulas it's very
> > important that they are not known in public.
>
> Hm?? What has this got to do with my previous post, and with the license
> of Open Euphoria? And are you trying to say, that making Euphoria Open
> Source would be dangerous, or what?
No, just that many chem formulas are not published because they
would give away the company secrets that the company spent millions
trying to develop.
>
> Regards,
> Juergen
The main idea in these discussions is to talk about what kind
of license should be chosen. In doing so, we want to talk about
the effects it has on all parties involved.
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."
18. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Jeremy Peterson wrote:
> I just had to reply to this.
> What about this bright young spark? What if he does make a few dozen great
> changes so people use it and buy it from him? That would be fine with me.
>
> All of a sudden - nothing would happen. Some people would buy it from him(big
> maybe), most probably wouldn't.
>
> If people want to buy a modified version of Euphoria that has features they
> like that they can't get anywhere else, sounds okay to me.
>
> There would still be the PD version of Euphoria available, so what's the prob
> lem?
>
> Jeremy
You are only looking at half the problem.
Why would I put work into Open Euphoria if I knew someone else could come
along, take all the hard work done by Rob and others and add a few extra
things on top and start selling it. They aren't just selling their changes,
they are selling everyone elses as well.
Really ... in this day and age I don't know anyone (except Microsoft) who
are making closed source langauges.
Sun are even open sourcing Java ... why do you think this is?
Because the community is bigger then the individual.
Being true to the community will get Euphoria far further then any indivual
ever will.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
19. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Al Getz wrote:
> You've stated what you think is the best option but havent shown
> any reasoning behind your opinion. If someone thinks that someday
> maybe they might make some money with a closed version and they
> actually do sell it and people like it and buy it that certainly
> looks like survival to me.
It's survial of a closed source version of Euphoria ... is that
what you want?
> I'd like to create my own version too, although it would be
> significantly different than Euphoria. I'd like to be able to
> start with the Open Source Euphoria though and keep it closed
> for a while at least. Now the licence can either help me get
> a head start or i have to start from scratch...either way i get
> my own closed version regardless of what license is selected.
If it is "that different" start from scratch.
How would your work help the Euphoria community?
It won't!!!
If 2 or more people start trying to make new closed source versions of
Euphoria .. it won't help anyone.
They will be working against each other instead of with each other!!!
lets work together :)
> So does it help to select a too restrictive license? It doesnt
> help me and it doesnt help Euphoria.
Yes it does help the Euphoria community!!!!
It forces everyone to share Euphoria with everyone else.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
20. Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Hi there Ray,
Ray Smith wrote:
>
> Al Getz wrote:
> > You've stated what you think is the best option but havent shown
> > any reasoning behind your opinion. If someone thinks that someday
> > maybe they might make some money with a closed version and they
> > actually do sell it and people like it and buy it that certainly
> > looks like survival to me.
>
> It's survial of a closed source version of Euphoria ... is that
> what you want?
>
As long as there is still an Open version of Eu too i dont mind
at all. People could build closed versions and work on the
open version too if they wanted too.
>
> > I'd like to create my own version too, although it would be
> > significantly different than Euphoria. I'd like to be able to
> > start with the Open Source Euphoria though and keep it closed
> > for a while at least. Now the licence can either help me get
> > a head start or i have to start from scratch...either way i get
> > my own closed version regardless of what license is selected.
>
> If it is "that different" start from scratch.
> How would your work help the Euphoria community?
> It won't!!!
>
Because Eu people might want to use it too. If they dont
then that's ok too, as it certainly doesnt 'hurt' Eu.
> If 2 or more people start trying to make new closed source versions of
> Euphoria .. it won't help anyone.
> They will be working against each other instead of with each other!!!
> lets work together :)
>
I dont agree, but a joint effort sure would be cool too!
I'm all for it. I see some problems though, such as agreeing
on what to put in and what to keep out. Case in point: goto.
There are two schools of thought on this, which i can only
explain by saying that the goto issue is multidimensional...
the is no one single answer to this. The basic argument is:
1. If you allow goto then you allow beginners to use it and
possibly not learn more structured programming.
2. If you dont allow it you cant jump out of complex loops easily.
So here we have the first fork in the road: include goto's or not?
It doesnt work to bind two different versions either...it's either
go or no go. So which is it?
Idea: goto with a warning issued? "warning, you've used a goto" ha ha.
Better than nothing i suppose.
>
> > So does it help to select a too restrictive license? It doesnt
> > help me and it doesnt help Euphoria.
>
> Yes it does help the Euphoria community!!!!
> It forces everyone to share Euphoria with everyone else.
>
Yeah but what about the people who dont want to be 'forced'
to do anything with the code they spend a long time working on?
Open Source should be just that. If the industry shows anything
most people will open theirs at some point anyway, so i say
leave it for them to decide. Not only that, when they do then
they really feel like they've given something...rather than
having it stolen from them in a manner of speaking.
> Regards,
>
> Ray Smith
> <a href="http://RaymondSmith.com">http://RaymondSmith.com</a>
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."
