1. Euphoria License
- Posted by cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
Sep 22, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 23, 2006
I want whatever license will let me do whatever I want with the code, even
package it up and sell it as my own creation. Why not?
It's not that I would, though. I don't have the time or interest to do that.
But I think the market would manage it well enough that nobody could come
along and say, "I created this great programming language," without somebody
piping up and saying, "That's a lot like Open Source Euphoria." :)
I certainly don't want to have to open source any programs I create with
Euphoria.
-=ck
"Programming in a state of Euphoria."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
2. Re: Euphoria License
- Posted by Jeremy Peterson <ptl99 at hotmail.com>
Sep 22, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 23, 2006
cklester wrote:
>
> I want whatever license will let me do whatever I want with the code, even
> package it up and sell it as my own creation. Why not?
>
> It's not that I would, though. I don't have the time or interest to do that.
> But I think the market would manage it well enough that nobody could come
> along and say, "I created this great programming language," without somebody
> piping up and saying, "That's a lot like Open Source Euphoria." :)
>
> I certainly don't want to have to open source any programs I create with
> Euphoria.
>
> -=ck
> "Programming in a state of Euphoria."
> <a
> href="http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/">http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/</a>
Hear, hear! Not that I would sell Eu either. Most people don't have the
resources and anyway most people wouldn't buy it. If you ask me it's a weak
argument.
Jeremy
3. Re: Euphoria License
To Anybody:
From what I have read, a user can not create their own interpeter
derive from the source and sell it without disclosing the full
source.
Here is a reference.
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/11/18/licenses.html
So why would anyone work hard at modifing the source when there
is no reward to do the work for. To get your name in the about
dialog box ?
Most developer's will modify the interpeter for there own internal
use an add features that are unique to their use. This keeps
the source improvements in their own pocket books.
The only free improvements will come from students and uinversities
if they find Euphoria of any interest.
I wonder how many users who are all for having open-source,
have ever purchased the source code.
Most of the user's would not be able to modify the source
or even understand it. How many users have modified the
the public domain source that is already available.
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
4. Re: Euphoria License
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
>
> To Anybody:
>
> From what I have read, a user can not create their own interpeter
> derive from the source and sell it without disclosing the full
> source.
That's the gist of some of the licenses being discussed here. It
basically ensures that all the work can be shared by everyone...or
only by the developer who created it (as you mention below).
> So why would anyone work hard at modifing the source when there
> is no reward to do the work for. To get your name in the about
> dialog box ?
The reward is also the software itself. They get to use it, and so do
others. They probably also use code that other people have written.
Was your only motivation for submissions the MicroEconomy money?
> Most developer's will modify the interpeter for there own internal
> use an add features that are unique to their use. This keeps
> the source improvements in their own pocket books.
>
> The only free improvements will come from students and uinversities
> if they find Euphoria of any interest.
I can guarantee you that this is false, since I plan to contribute free
improvements. There is a growing level of corporate participation in
open source. Companies like IBM have many sallaried employees whose
job it is to contribute to various open source projects. The motivations
aren't always as obvious as selling software under a proprietary license,
but I would think it quite obvious by the volume of open source development
going on that the motivations exist.
The only question has been how will Rob continue to support himself--
assuming that Euphoria did this for him. Given his decision, apparently
he doesn't need it, or has found something better...or maybe Junko got a
good job, and is now supporting Rob in the style to which he has become
accustomed. :)
> I wonder how many users who are all for having open-source,
> have ever purchased the source code.
I did.
> Most of the user's would not be able to modify the source
> or even understand it. How many users have modified the
> the public domain source that is already available.
Me. I agree that the 'many eyes' philosophy is not all that it is often
claimed to be. Not everyone has the drive or the ability to read, fix or
enhance a complex piece of software. However, I think it should be pretty
clear that there are several Euphoria users who fit the bill, and that
there are a lot of other Euphoria users interested in getting the benefits
from the work of those few.
Matt Lewis
5. Re: Euphoria License
Matt Lewis wrote:
> Me. I agree that the 'many eyes' philosophy is not all that it is often
> claimed to be. Not everyone has the drive or the ability to read, fix or
> enhance a complex piece of software. However, I think it should be pretty
> clear that there are several Euphoria users who fit the bill, and that
> there are a lot of other Euphoria users interested in getting the benefits
> from the work of those few.
Yeah. I dont understand C code but will offer to implement front-end features
found in VEEU and let others hand translate my code found in execute.e to the C
backend.
I think it would be really swell if you implemented your OOEU GUI debugger into
the official Euphoria, if wxEuphoria can work on FreeBSD; it wouldn't have to
replace the existing trace screen if it were invoked by "trace(4)" or something.
OOEU's pass-by-reference feature is cool as well and should be considered. Maybe
eval() too if you can reduce the overhead some more.
Here are the features found in VEEU that I would eventually like to share with
Open Euphoria:
1) A "continue" statement for 'for' and 'while' loops.
2) Built-in version() routine.
3) Smart global conflict resolution include system to compliment the new include
statement fix/improvement in v3.0.
4) Dynamic variable routines: variable_id(), set_var(), and get_var().
5) Block commenting with "-[" and "-]" delimiters.
6) The ability to test sequences in "if" and "while" expressions using
relational operators rather than the bulky compare() and/or equal() routines. No
worries this is a backwards compatible feature.
Support for infinite call-back arguments is a feature in VEEU and OOEU that
would be nice in Open Euphoria. It shouldn't be implemented because of its use of
x86 machine code. Of course if someone is willing to port this code to different
CPU architectures if Euphoria ever went beyond x86, then I say go for it.
Anyway these are just me brainstorming out loud. I'm sure some people will
object to my ideas. 
Regards,
Vincent
6. Re: Euphoria License
- Posted by ags <eu at 531pi.co.nz>
Sep 24, 2006
Vincent wrote:
>
> Support for infinite call-back arguments is a feature in VEEU and OOEU that
> would be nice in Open Euphoria. It shouldn't be implemented because of its
> use of x86 machine code.
And why not? As long as the ASM is OS independent over the i386 architecture it
just warrants an "i386 only" note in the docs for it.
7. Re: Euphoria License
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
> To Anybody:
>
> From what I have read, a user can not create their own interpeter
> derive from the source and sell it without disclosing the full
> source.
>
> Here is a reference.
>
> <a
> href="http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/11/18/licenses.html">http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/11/18/licenses.html</a>
Seems fair to me.
> So why would anyone work hard at modifing the source when there
> is no reward to do the work for. To get your name in the about
> dialog box ?
They will change it for their own benefit.
If I wanted something so bad (e.g. Kat's goto statement), I'll add it,
and if anyone else wants to use they can.
> Most developer's will modify the interpeter for there own internal
> use an add features that are unique to their use. This keeps
> the source improvements in their own pocket books.
Most developers don't have "unique" problems they are trying to solve.
Almost certainly someone else somewhere have had / or will have a similiar
problem.
> The only free improvements will come from students and uinversities
> if they find Euphoria of any interest.
This is rubbish.
Have a look at Python (for instance), dozens of people contribute to it who
are not students or from uni's.
You may just find people will modify Euphoria to help themselves.
As it just happens, it will probably help others as well.
> Most of the user's would not be able to modify the source
> or even understand it. How many users have modified the
> the public domain source that is already available.
It only takes a few people to improve it.
If Euphoria was open source years ago do you think David Cuny would have left
and made his own language?
More recently, do you think Derek Parnell would of left?
Just imagine if these 2 people started improving Euphoria?
The thought is mind boogling. Euphoria would be so much more advanced!!!
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
