1. Linux Torvalds on GPL2
- Posted by Kenneth Rhodes <ken_rhodes30436 at yahoo.com>
Sep 25, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 26, 2006
This article may be of interest:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5627827397.html
Ken Rhodes
Folding at Home: http://folding.stanford.edu/
100% MicroSoft Free
SuSE Linux 10.0
No AdWare, SpyWare, or Viruses!
Life is Good, 
2. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:44:52 -0700, Kenneth Rhodes
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>This article may be of interest:
>
>http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5627827397.html
>
Nice link. I love the quote:
As an example, Torvalds then cites his own, self-made, original Linux
source license, which basically said: "Give all source back, and never
charge any money". It took me a few months, but I realized that the
'never charge any money' part was just asinine. It wasn't the point.
The point was always "give back in kind".
Probably because I've practically forced that 
Regards,
Pete
3. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Pete Lomax wrote:
> ><a
> >href="http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5627827397.html">http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5627827397.html</a>
> >
> Nice link. I love the quote:
> As an example, Torvalds then cites his own, self-made, original Linux
> source license, which basically said: "Give all source back, and never
> charge any money". It took me a few months, but I realized that the
> 'never charge any money' part was just asinine. It wasn't the point.
> The point was always "give back in kind".
>
> Probably because I've practically forced that
>
I agree ...
hence reason I'm pushing for a LGPL type license for Euphoria.
If Euphoria is released to the public domain or under a BSD type license it
allows people to use Euphoria without giving anything back.
People makig there own closed source versions of Euphoria "won't" promote
Euphoria usage long term.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
4. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:01:57 -0700, Ray Smith
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>Pete Lomax wrote:
>> ><a
>> >href="http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5627827397.html">http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5627827397.html</a>
>> >
>> Nice link. I love the quote:
>> As an example, Torvalds then cites his own, self-made, original Linux
>> source license, which basically said: "Give all source back, and never
>> charge any money". It took me a few months, but I realized that the
>> 'never charge any money' part was just asinine. It wasn't the point.
>> The point was always "give back in kind".
>>
>> Probably because I've practically forced that
>>
>
>I agree ...
>
>hence reason I'm pushing for a LGPL type license for Euphoria.
>If Euphoria is released to the public domain or under a BSD type license it
>allows people to use Euphoria without giving anything back.
>
>People makig there own closed source versions of Euphoria "won't" promote
>Euphoria usage long term.
>
Have you (or anyone else) seen my licence?
I haven't had any feedback at all on it yet.
Regards,
Pete
http://palacebuilders.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/euphoria.html
or more pertinent:
http://palacebuilders.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/pfeat.htm#licence
I'm sure you'll note this doc is not finalised, but the idea is there.
5. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
- Posted by ags <eu at 531pi.co.nz>
Sep 26, 2006
Ray Smith wrote:
> People makig there own closed source versions of Euphoria "won't" promote
> Euphoria usage long term.
For a start, I don't think people are that easily misled. If someone makes a
closed source version, they won't be able to re-implement all of the user
contributions (this decade anyway) and will probably want to remain 'code
compatible' with the original to take advantage of that resource. In that case
they will have little choice but to point their users at the user contributions,
the forum, etc. (or it won't take that user community long to cotton on to the
fact that they are available).
Also, once the opened version really takes off, and hopefully managed properly,
its performance and features will outshine all but the largest software developer
studio and the tools available will no doubt be much more abundant.
So once users of other implementations see the other versions available they
will be free to make up their own minds. So like children, these children of
Euphoria will carry on the traditions or culture of this current user base, some
may be self centred and money grabbing and some may be free loving and sharing
touchy feely etc. Some will survive and some will not. Maybe the commercially
oriented ones (though I don't believe the source should ever be closed) will be
the ones that ensure the propagation of Euphoria into the future, maybe not?
I get the impression that many here are worrying too much about this. The core
"Open Euphoria" will no doubt be a well managed project, and I'd say there's only
a handful of people in the current user base that will actually be able to
actively maintain this main branch; Rob will still be able to maintain control,
there will be disputes and code forks, etc. All in all very interesting times
ahead :)
Gary
6. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Pete Lomax wrote:
> Have you (or anyone else) seen my licence?
> I haven't had any feedback at all on it yet.
Hi Pete,
I haven't looked before.
I think that is a nice license ... BUT ... how is this differnet to Rob
selling the eu source?
(The can run compiled programs on your own PC is a nice idea ...
but I imagine it is illegal for someone to register then make an
interpreter that doesn't have the "tired to this machine" restriction?)
Can someone add extra features and re-distribute it??
I think it's a nice license for a "psuedo" closed source app.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
7. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
ags wrote:
> I get the impression that many here are worrying too much about this. The
> core
> "Open Euphoria" will no doubt be a well managed project, and I'd say there's
> only a handful of people in the current user base that will actually be able
> to actively maintain this main branch; Rob will still be able to maintain
> control,
> there will be disputes and code forks, etc. All in all very interesting times
> ahead :)
Hi Gary,
I pretty much agree with what you say.
Here is the crunch though ....
"if" Euphoria is open sourced as public domain or a BSD type license ...
will "everyone" be happy to submit code to "open eu" under this license ...
knowing someone else can come along and use their code in a closed source
proprietary language/application?
The people arguing for BSD or Public Domain are saying I want to use Euphoria
source code in closed source apps.
This "will" stop some people from submitting bug fixes, enhancements etc to
Euphoria. How many, I obviously don't know ... but some people won't want
"their" submitted code used in closed source apps.
And for those people who think they will make modifications and make and
sell a new language ... WAKE UP ... unless you are Microsoft you won't
be selling more than a couple of copies to anyone.
The number of high quality open source, free languages and environments
have already won.
I think it possible to sell some add on products, like if someone wrote an
amazing debugger for open eu ... or other tools, you may sell a few copies,
but no one is going to be selling a new or derived language in this day and
age.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
8. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
- Posted by ags <eu at 531pi.co.nz>
Sep 26, 2006
Ray Smith wrote:
>
> ags wrote:
> > I get the impression that many here are worrying too much about this. The
> > core
> > "Open Euphoria" will no doubt be a well managed project, and I'd say there's
> > only a handful of people in the current user base that will actually be able
> > to actively maintain this main branch; Rob will still be able to maintain
> > control,
> > there will be disputes and code forks, etc. All in all very interesting
> > times
> > ahead :)
>
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> I pretty much agree with what you say.
>
> Here is the crunch though ....
>
> "if" Euphoria is open sourced as public domain or a BSD type license ...
> will "everyone" be happy to submit code to "open eu" under this license ...
> knowing someone else can come along and use their code in a closed source
> proprietary language/application?
Well, that's their choice. I'm sure quite a few people here were willing to
help improve (closed) Euphoria just for getting the benefit for themselves and
their peers.
But yeah, if you're going to make something open source you may as well ensure
it always remains open source.
> The people arguing for BSD or Public Domain are saying I want to use Euphoria
> source code in closed source apps.
> This "will" stop some people from submitting bug fixes, enhancements etc to
>
> Euphoria. How many, I obviously don't know ... but some people won't want
> "their" submitted code used in closed source apps.
Again, it's their choice. If they know this is possible according to the
license and submit anyway, then c'est la vie. At least they and other users get
that improvement. You can't contribute to an open source project without
accepting the terms of the existing license.
> And for those people who think they will make modifications and make and
> sell a new language ... WAKE UP ... unless you are Microsoft you won't
> be selling more than a couple of copies to anyone.
Stranger things have happened at sea. Apparently :)
The last thing I would want to see happen is Euphoria not being able to be
incorporated into a commercial application. I wouldn't mind a commercial
application being made that is centered on Euphoria (like an IDE) but, like you
say, the reality is that as soon as someone did that there would be an open
source version out the next day and 5 versions ahead in one year.
Gary
9. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
ags wrote:
>
> Ray Smith wrote:
> > "if" Euphoria is open sourced as public domain or a BSD type license ...
> > will "everyone" be happy to submit code to "open eu" under this license ...
> > knowing someone else can come along and use their code in a closed source
> > proprietary language/application?
>
> Well, that's their choice. I'm sure quite a few people here were willing to
> help improve (closed) Euphoria just for getting the benefit for themselves and
> their peers.
Well, for me this seems to be the decision that has to be made ...
Who do you exclude:
* The people who want their own and everyone else's work to stay open source, or
* The people who "may" want to use the Euphoria source code in a closed source
project.
Whatever the choice, one group of people won't be happy.
> Again, it's their choice. If they know this is possible according to the
> license
> and submit anyway, then c'est la vie. At least they and other users get that
> improvement. You can't contribute to an open source project without accepting
> the terms of the existing license.
Just as it's everyone's choice to contribute to a GPL or LGPL based project,
knowing the consequences.
Well, you can change any GPL or any other Open Source code in anyway you wish
as long as you don't give anyone the application as either ;)
> > And for those people who think they will make modifications and make and
> > sell a new language ... WAKE UP ... unless you are Microsoft you won't
> > be selling more than a couple of copies to anyone.
>
> Stranger things have happened at sea. Apparently :)
>
> The last thing I would want to see happen is Euphoria not being able to be
> incorporated
> into a commercial application.
LGLP allows this.
If you change the base "Euphoria" code in anyway, that part must be open sourced
as well.
This isn't a major restriction.
E.g. I make a wonderful IDE for Euphoria, but I had to add some debug hooks into
the Eu
interpreter for my all dancing singing debugger ...
I have to make those changes to the eu interpreter open source,
but my all singing all dancing debugger can stay closed source.
This is the whole point of the LGPL license.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
10. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Ray Smith wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> I pretty much agree with what you say.
>
> Here is the crunch though ....
>
> "if" Euphoria is open sourced as public domain or a BSD type license ...
>
> will "everyone" be happy to submit code to "open eu" under this license ...
>
> knowing someone else can come along and use their code in a closed source
> proprietary language/application?
They don;t have to...
*If* Euphoria were open sourced as public domain or under a X11 or BSD type
license...
and you made a GPLed fork of euphoria (which those licenses would allow you to
do)...
will "everyone" be happy to submit code to "Free Eu" under that license...
knowing that they are required to release their code under a license which has
firm restricts on what they can and can't do with it whereas "Open Eu" allows you
to do whatever you want with it?
I like having my own rights over my own code. I like being able to choose to
release my work commercially or give it away for everyone to use under pretty
much any license I choose. The GPL does not allow this. This is why I like the
BSD and X11 licenses, they give me those rights. The BSD license allows someone
to release a derivative work of it under the GPL if they so desire. The GPL does
not allow the opposite, you can not put any other restrictions at all on the
code.
> The people arguing for BSD or Public Domain are saying I want to use Euphoria
> source code in closed source apps.
> This "will" stop some people from submitting bug fixes, enhancements etc to
> Euphoria. How many, I obviously don't know ... but some people won't want
> "their" submitted code used in closed source apps.
...then they can choose to release it under the GPL or a similarly restrictive
license.
However, GPLed code is open for everyone to see. So regardless of the license,
any new functionality in open sourced code could be put back in for everyone to
use "in closed source apps" by simply rewriting it so as to not create a
"derivative work" of the original and open sourcing it as BSD/X11.
> And for those people who think they will make modifications and make and
> sell a new language ... WAKE UP ... unless you are Microsoft you won't
> be selling more than a couple of copies to anyone.
Arguably, I could easily see it happening in some cases.
> The number of high quality open source, free languages and environments
> have already won.
I originally was going to put "Arguably" but instead I'm going to say "Patently
false".
If they have already won why do people still pay for commercial, proprietary
languages and environments?
> I think it possible to sell some add on products, like if someone wrote an
> amazing debugger for open eu ... or other tools, you may sell a few copies,
> but no one is going to be selling a new or derived language in this day and
> age.
Hey, you never know. We could see Microsoft Visual Eu.NET in a few years for all
we know.
11. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Allright, there seems to be some mis-conceptions in which I belive needs to be
marked out here. The major thing being the line in which the GPL, and LGPL
consideres Derivitive, and such codes.
In cases of both GPL, and LGPL, the clearly state that the original Source code,
with any modifications, should be released back to the General Public for
consumption. This does not in any way mean anything about any product created
ontop of the Source code. As often, alot of libraries (Simple Direct Media
Library comes to mind), your free to modify the code, as long as you publish your
modifications. Anything built ontop of the SDL Library, can be either Open
Source, or Closed source.
I've seen this referenced alot in this thread, as if Rob was to go with the
[L]GPL license, that anything they make ontop of the Euphoria Interpreter (EG: A
program they create, using the Euphoria Language), must be open. That is simply
not the case. Anything built ontop of a [L]GPL'ed peice of code, can be closed
source, as long as the [L]GPL'ed source code remains open, along with any
modifications they make to that source code.
So, there needs to be a defined clearing of thoes two right now, and future
references should point that the Euphoria Source Code should remain open, if your
interested in doing that, and anything that is made in the Euphoria Programming
Language can be open or closed, or whatever the Author wants.
Just wanted to make that clear, cause from the discussion, no one has clearly
defined that line between what is what, and I think that is majorly needed here.
Mario Steele
http://enchantedblade.trilake.net
Attaining World Dominiation, one byte at a time...
12. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
D. Newhall wrote:
>
> I like having my own rights over my own code. I like being able to choose to
> release my work commercially or give it away for everyone to use under pretty
> much any license I choose. The GPL does not allow this. This is why I like the
> BSD and X11 licenses, they give me those rights. The BSD license allows
> someone
> to release a derivative work of it under the GPL if they so desire. The GPL
> does not allow the opposite, you can not put any other restrictions at all on
> the code.
>
My sentiments are similar.
My main issue is that I normally release my code as PD, completely unrestricted.
I don't care if someone wants to use my code that I have given away to make
money, that's great. If I'm giving it away, I've already got my own value out of
it.
> > And for those people who think they will make modifications and make and
> > sell a new language ... WAKE UP ... unless you are Microsoft you won't
> > be selling more than a couple of copies to anyone.
>
> Arguably, I could easily see it happening in some cases.
What has RDS been doing for 15 years?
> > The number of high quality open source, free languages and environments
> > have already won.
>
> I originally was going to put "Arguably" but instead I'm going to say
> "Patently
> false".
>
> If they have already won why do people still pay for commercial, proprietary
> languages and environments?
I pay because it's cheaper than fixing it myself.
Money allows people/companies to devote time and effort to ensuring quality and
control of the product.
Money also allows products to be advertised and advancements to be researched.
13. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Mario Steele wrote:
>
> Allright, there seems to be some mis-conceptions in which I belive needs to
> be marked out here. The major thing being the line in which the GPL, and LGPL
> consideres Derivitive, and such codes.
>
> In cases of both GPL, and LGPL, the clearly state that the original Source
> code,
> with any modifications, should be released back to the General Public for
> consumption.
> This does not in any way mean anything about any product created ontop of the
> Source code. As often, alot of libraries (Simple Direct Media Library comes
> to mind), your free to modify the code, as long as you publish your
> modifications.
> Anything built ontop of the SDL Library, can be either Open Source, or Closed
> source.
[snip]
A GPL library/application can't be statically linked with non GPL'd code.
This is why the LGPL (or equivalent) should be used
I have the impression a number of people want to take the Euphoria source and
make an enhanced closed source version of Euphoria (or new languages based on
Euphoria) all of which are closed source.
My feeling is, if you wish to do this write it yourself from scratch.
A LGPL'd Euphoria interpreter would allow everyone to do everything they do
now plus more.
You just won't be able to make a new closed source version of Euphoria.
I find it a little "???" (can't think of the word) that people demand a
BSD or Public Domain license to have full rights to source code that they
didn't develop. The whole thing was developed by RDS and Rob and he alone
has the right to release it using any license he wishes.
If it is released under a BSD or Public Domain license I don't think
Euphoria's future will be as prosperous.
All I see is people trying to make closed source versions trying to get a
grab at a small (and shrinking) market.
As far as I'm concerned everyone has had their say and it's up to Rob if he
wishes for the Euphoria source to always be Open Source and free forever,
or if he is OK with people making closed source versions of Euphoria.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
14. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Mario Steele wrote:
>
> Allright, there seems to be some mis-conceptions in which I belive needs to
> be marked out here. The major thing being the line in which the GPL, and LGPL
> consideres Derivitive, and such codes.
Yes, you are right Mario. However, this is a crucial definition : what is
derivative?
The FSF people seem to say that just using any GPL software component in your
application makes your work a derivative work. For example, if OEU were GPL, then
any program coded using an INCLUDE that directly or indirectly included some code
that is distributed as a part of OEU, would itself have to be GPL - even if you
do not change, in any manner, the OEU code.
Whereas if OEU was LGPL, then including an OEU component would not mean that you
program is a derivative work. With LGPL, it seems that a work becomes derivative
only if it modifies one or more LGPL distributed files in some way.
Other crucial points include...
** when any OEU code is modified, how much of OEU is one supposed to make
available to anyone? For example, if I add a find_from() function to the
wildcard.e file, do I have to make all of OEU available for just my changes?
** when one includes an OEU component (modified) in a new software component,
does one have to make the entire new component available or just the modified OEU
component. For example, if I add a find_from() function to the wildcard.e file,
and then use that as an included file, do I only have to make wildcard.e
available, or must I also make available my program that uses the modified
wildcard.e?
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
Skype name: derek.j.parnell
15. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Ray Smith wrote:
...
> I have the impression a number of people want to take the Euphoria source and
>
> make an enhanced closed source version of Euphoria (or new languages based on
>
> Euphoria) all of which are closed source.
I would be surely disappointed in anyone throwning me into that category.
I have no desire whatsoever, and never had one, in using RDS' Euphoria to create
a closed language, or even an open new language.
I believe the benefits of RDS opening up their implementation of Euphoria
include ...
** Improved bug detection and resolution.
** Faster turn around on changes (fixes and enhancements)
** Democratization of the Change Control process
** Synegy of multiple minds working to improve the language and its
implementation.
** Improved security in terms of source code escrow
** Improved ability to rollback specific deltas
** Improved visibility in the developer community's eye due to increased
activity
> As far as I'm concerned everyone has had their say and it's up to Rob if he
> wishes for the Euphoria source to always be Open Source and free forever,
> or if he is OK with people making closed source versions of Euphoria.
I do not believe that everyone has yet completed saying their piece.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
Skype name: derek.j.parnell
16. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Derek Parnell wrote:
>
> Mario Steele wrote:
> >
> > Allright, there seems to be some mis-conceptions in which I belive needs to
> > be marked out here. The major thing being the line in which the GPL, and
> > LGPL
> > consideres Derivitive, and such codes.
>
> Yes, you are right Mario. However, this is a crucial definition : what is
> derivative?
>
> The FSF people seem to say that just using any GPL software component in your
> application makes your work a derivative work. For example, if OEU were GPL,
> then any program coded using an INCLUDE that directly or indirectly included
> some code that is distributed as a part of OEU, would itself have to be GPL
> - even if you do not change, in any manner, the OEU code.
I suggest LGPL for this reason.
> Whereas if OEU was LGPL, then including an OEU component would not mean that
> you program is a derivative work. With LGPL, it seems that a work becomes
> derivative
> only if it modifies one or more LGPL distributed files in some way.
>
> Other crucial points include...
>
> ** when any OEU code is modified, how much of OEU is one supposed to make
> available
> to anyone? For example, if I add a find_from() function to the wildcard.e
> file,
> do I have to make all of OEU available for just my changes?
> ** when one includes an OEU component (modified) in a new software component,
> does one have to make the entire new component available or just the modified
> OEU component. For example, if I add a find_from() function to the wildcard.e
> file, and then use that as an included file, do I only have to make wildcard.e
> available, or must I also make available my program that uses the modified
> wildcard.e?
Just your change is ok. You aren't responsible for the whole package.
You don't need to make a "package" available, just the source code of your
change (with a link to the original if you don't want to host it yourself)
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
17. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Mario Steele wrote:
> Allright, there seems to be some mis-conceptions in which I belive needs to
> be marked out here. The major thing being the line in which the GPL, and LGPL
> consideres Derivitive, and such codes.
I'd like it to be PD just so I don't have to worry about all this junk.
If people want to protect their modifications, they can do that.
If a person creates a closed-source commercial app with the PD source. The
source is still PD. They shouldn't be forced to redistribute it or disclose their
changes.
Rob already stated that he was considering releasing it as PD but wanted input
from others, so it doesn't sound as though he is concerned about somebody
capitalizing off it. Sounds like everyone else is concerned about it for him.
PD would resolve all the disagreements we are having now. People could fork a
GPL version and an LGPL and MPL and BSD and etc, etc.
The official openEu could choose to go with one of those EULA's as well, while
still allowing others their freedom to choose what they want to do with their own
code.
18. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Derek Parnell wrote:
>
> Ray Smith wrote:
> ...
>
> > I have the impression a number of people want to take the Euphoria source
> > and
> >
> > make an enhanced closed source version of Euphoria (or new languages based
> > on
> >
> > Euphoria) all of which are closed source.
>
> I would be surely disappointed in anyone throwning me into that category.
>
> I have no desire whatsoever, and never had one, in using RDS' Euphoria to
> create
> a closed language, or even an open new language.
>
> I believe the benefits of RDS opening up their implementation of Euphoria
> include
> ...
>
> ** Improved bug detection and resolution.
> ** Faster turn around on changes (fixes and enhancements)
> ** Democratization of the Change Control process
> ** Synegy of multiple minds working to improve the language and its
> implementation.
> ** Improved security in terms of source code escrow
> ** Improved ability to rollback specific deltas
> ** Improved visibility in the developer community's eye due to increased
> activity
>
> > As far as I'm concerned everyone has had their say and it's up to Rob if he
> > wishes for the Euphoria source to always be Open Source and free forever,
> > or if he is OK with people making closed source versions of Euphoria.
>
> I do not believe that everyone has yet completed saying their piece.
>
> --
> Derek Parnell
> Melbourne, Australia
> Skype name: derek.j.parnell
At last, the voice of reason!
Chris
19. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> Mario Steele wrote:
>
> > Allright, there seems to be some mis-conceptions in which I belive needs to
> > be marked out here. The major thing being the line in which the GPL, and
> > LGPL
> > consideres Derivitive, and such codes.
>
> I'd like it to be PD just so I don't have to worry about all this junk.
>
> If people want to protect their modifications, they can do that.
> If a person creates a closed-source commercial app with the PD source. The
> source
> is still PD. They shouldn't be forced to redistribute it or disclose their
> changes.
>
> Rob already stated that he was considering releasing it as PD but wanted input
> from others, so it doesn't sound as though he is concerned about somebody
> capitalizing
> off it. Sounds like everyone else is concerned about it for him.
>
> PD would resolve all the disagreements we are having now. People could fork
> a GPL version and an LGPL and MPL and BSD and etc, etc.
> The official openEu could choose to go with one of those EULA's as well, while
> still allowing others their freedom to choose what they want to do with their
> own code.
More reason, within the space of 2 messages!
Chris
20. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:42:44 -0700, Ray Smith
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>Pete Lomax wrote:
>> Have you (or anyone else) seen my licence?
>> I haven't had any feedback at all on it yet.
>
>Hi Pete,
>
>I haven't looked before.
>I think that is a nice license ... BUT ... how is this differnet to Rob
>selling the eu source?
You are not forced to buy anything, unless you want to protect your
source code or otherwise install a prebuilt exe without source.
>(The can run compiled programs on your own PC is a nice idea ...
>but I imagine it is illegal for someone to register then make an
>interpreter that doesn't have the "tired to this machine" restriction?)
Correct. If your app uses opBind or opInterp then you are forced to go
open source, or perhaps reach some kind of agreement with me.
I feel obliged to point out that using the open source back end as per
OOEU's exec() would not be a problem.
>Can someone add extra features and re-distribute it??
Of course, as source, optionally with automatic rebuild on install.
I may well put together a package to encourage just that.
>I think it's a nice license for a "psuedo" closed source app.
Thanks!
Regards,
Pete
21. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Derek Parnell wrote:
>
> Ray Smith wrote:
>
> I would be surely disappointed in anyone throwning me into that category.
I have alot of respect for the work you have done with Euphoria in the past
and would never assume such a thing (I don't know of anyone who would).
> I believe the benefits of RDS opening up their implementation of Euphoria
> include
> ...
>
> ** Improved bug detection and resolution.
> ** Faster turn around on changes (fixes and enhancements)
> ** Democratization of the Change Control process
> ** Synegy of multiple minds working to improve the language and its
> implementation.
> ** Improved security in terms of source code escrow
> ** Improved ability to rollback specific deltas
> ** Improved visibility in the developer community's eye due to increased
> activity
Agree 100%
> > As far as I'm concerned everyone has had their say and it's up to Rob if he
> > wishes for the Euphoria source to always be Open Source and free forever,
> > or if he is OK with people making closed source versions of Euphoria.
>
> I do not believe that everyone has yet completed saying their piece.
Everyone .. voice your opinions.
(I think the LGPL vs BSD and PD has been hashed to death though)
I have no problem with the BSD and public domain models for releasing software,
I don't even have problems with closed source / proprietry software.
I just beleive a LGPL license for Euphoria gives Euphoria the brightest possible
future.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
22. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Well I for one never did, and don't have any inclination to sell or create
closed-versions of any derivative or other of the Euphoria language.
And imo PD is the best license to go with. Easy, simple, no problems with
commercial projects or GPL ones, or any kind of license.(I think) :)
Jeremy
23. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
I'm with Derek Parnell on this one.
24. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
D. Newhall wrote:
>
> Hey, you never know. We could see Microsoft Visual Eu.NET in a few years for
> all we know.
Heh, I've got a partial .Net implementation of ooeu right now.
Matt Lewis
25. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
> Have you (or anyone else) seen my licence?
> I haven't had any feedback at all on it yet.
>
> Regards,
> Pete
> http://palacebuilders.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/euphoria.html
> or more pertinent:
> http://palacebuilders.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/pfeat.htm#licence
> I'm sure you'll note this doc is not finalised, but the idea is there.
>
In a word, confusing. Or at least complex. The prospect of actual open
source Euphoria makes positive less attractive to me. The closed-sourceiness
of the project is a bit of a turn off. Not that I'm anti-closed source,
per se, but I'm not personally planning on making any money off of
Euphoria, and am more interested in the coding itself. Open source
therefore suits me better, personally.
Matt Lewis
26. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Ray Smith
Since you are all for open source, will your small accounting system
for clubs be open source ?
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
27. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Ray Smith wrote:
>
> E.g. I make a wonderful IDE for Euphoria, but I had to add some debug hooks
> into the Eu
> interpreter for my all dancing singing debugger ...
> I have to make those changes to the eu interpreter open source,
> but my all singing all dancing debugger can stay closed source.
> This is the whole point of the LGPL license.
Ray, that sounds perfect! I vote LGPL then. :)
-=ck
"Programming in a state of Euphoria."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
28. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
- Posted by Ray Smith <ray at RaymondSmith.com>
Sep 26, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 27, 2006
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
> Ray Smith
>
> Since you are all for open source, will your small accounting system
>
> for clubs be open source ?
Hi Bernie,
I thought about making it Open Source, and when I eventually finish I may,
but my current plan is NOT to make it open source.
If I can make some pocket money with it I will ;)
It is a niche product, not a mainstream product where alot of alternatives
already exist.
OOooo .. I hear you say ... "the pot calling the ..."
some reasons ...
1. I have never said Open Source is the only option way to write code,
2. I have even said BSD, Public Domain, and closed source have their place,
3. Each application is different and needs to be evaluated for their own
goals and future direction/use,
4. The audience (the people using the software) needs to be evaluated, to see
how their possible cooperation could help the future of the product.
"If" there was an open source application that did something similiar to what
I wanted I would have (if I could) support that application and modify
it for my own use.
So, No, it isn't open source, may never be open source, but maybe one day it
will.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
29. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
- Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net>
Sep 26, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 27, 2006
Ray Smith wrote:
[SNIP]
> It is a niche product, not a mainstream product where alot of alternatives
> already exist.
What difference does that make? If a person thinks they could make money in a
saturated market, what concern is it of yours?
Here's a question for you Ray, not really related to this reply, but anyway:
If a product is opensourced under LGPL, or GPL or whatever, the basic premise is
'tit for tat' as Linus Torvalds put it.
How much 'tit' = 'tat'? At what point have I satisfied payment for the source to
be used at my own discretion?
30. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
- Posted by Ray Smith <ray at RaymondSmith.com>
Sep 26, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 27, 2006
Ray Smith wrote:
> Bernie Ryan wrote:
> > Ray Smith
> >
> > Since you are all for open source, will your small accounting system
> >
> > for clubs be open source ?
I also forgot to mention ...
the code is 100% mine, written by me.
I didn't take someone else's project (donation if you will),
make a few changes and then start selling it.
I have no problems with projects which are PD or BSD type licenses and people
doing this ... because this is what the original authors were happy with.
..and it seems like Rob will be happy with this to, so unless Rob changes
his mind this is what I expect will hapen to Euphoria was well.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://raymondSmith.com
31. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
- Posted by Ray Smith <ray at RaymondSmith.com>
Sep 26, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 27, 2006
Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> Ray Smith wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > It is a niche product, not a mainstream product where alot of alternatives
> > already exist.
>
> What difference does that make? If a person thinks they could make money in
> a saturated market, what concern is it of yours?
It's not of my concern. Anyone is obviously free to do what they want.
It's much more difficult to sell something in a saturated market where "great"
free alternatives exist.
BUT ... if 2 or 3 people each go and make closed source versions of Euphoria,
each with a different feature set ... how does this help the long term future of
Euphoria?
It will just make it more complicated.
Even if 1 closed source version became the winner ... and everyone started to
use that ... we are back to were we started from with 1 man running the show.
Which worked ... "ok" ... but nowhere near as productive as many of the
currenty open source competitors.
> Here's a question for you Ray, not really related to this reply, but anyway:
> If a product is opensourced under LGPL, or GPL or whatever, the basic premise
> is 'tit for tat' as Linus Torvalds put it.
> How much 'tit' = 'tat'? At what point have I satisfied payment for the source
> to be used at my own discretion?
Difficult question, not a single answer obviously.
Persoanlly, I'd be happy for people to make lots of money with Euphoria.
Making IDE's or debuggers, that "plug in" to the Euphoria interpreter.
And as long as these people always had the long term future of Euphoria in
mind I'm sure everyone would be happy.
But, unless the core is always open and free there will be occasions when
things won't work "well" together, or different versions make it difficult
for someone, of multiple efforts are required to keep "versions in synch" etc.
As long as a way forward exists where everyone works together for the same goal
then I think everyone will be happy :)
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
32. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Ray Smith wrote:
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
> >
> > Ray Smith wrote:
> >
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > > It is a niche product, not a mainstream product where alot of alternatives
> > >
> > > already exist.
> >
> > What difference does that make? If a person thinks they could make money in
> > a saturated market, what concern is it of yours?
>
> It's not of my concern. Anyone is obviously free to do what they want.
> It's much more difficult to sell something in a saturated market where "great"
> free alternatives exist.
>
> BUT ... if 2 or 3 people each go and make closed source versions of Euphoria,
> each with a different feature set ... how does this help the long term future
> of
> Euphoria?
> It will just make it more complicated.
Commercial versions can invest money into researching and developing their
version of the language. There would still be the opensource version if people
want to incorperate the same features.
Commercial versions could also act as testing grounds to see what features work.
Commercial versions would typically employ more highly skilled programmers,
developing better quality code.
Not all, but some, if not many of the people who use the source for commercial
products would likely want to support the product that seeded thier own, if only
to help foster more free code that they could use.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
Take Apache for example. Many companies fund it because they use it and they
want it to continue developing.
> Even if 1 closed source version became the winner ... and everyone started to
> use that ... we are back to were we started from with 1 man running the show.
How would it be the same? Rob's source would still be available.
How would it be unfair if a company invested $1,000's into advertising and
development to make a quality product and expected to be compensated for that
investment? It's not as simple as just cashing in on Robs work.
> Which worked ... "ok" ... but nowhere near as productive as many of the
> currenty open source competitors.
That's just your opinion. You have any data to verify that?
> > Here's a question for you Ray, not really related to this reply, but anyway:
> > If a product is opensourced under LGPL, or GPL or whatever, the basic
> > premise
> > is 'tit for tat' as Linus Torvalds put it.
> > How much 'tit' = 'tat'? At what point have I satisfied payment for the
> > source
> > to be used at my own discretion?
>
> Difficult question, not a single answer obviously.
> Persoanlly, I'd be happy for people to make lots of money with Euphoria.
> Making IDE's or debuggers, that "plug in" to the Euphoria interpreter.
> And as long as these people always had the long term future of Euphoria in
> mind I'm sure everyone would be happy.
We could already make extraneous applications to support Eu and sell them, I
don't see that happening. Before there can be supply, there needs to be demand.
> But, unless the core is always open and free there will be occasions when
> things won't work "well" together, or different versions make it difficult
> for someone, of multiple efforts are required to keep "versions in synch" etc.
Without competition, you will be driving in a tunnel.
> As long as a way forward exists where everyone works together for the same
> goal
> then I think everyone will be happy :)
That's naive, IMO. People very rarely agree on things.
Sounds like Communism :)
In theory it's utopia, but in reality it just doesn't work.
~ The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra ~
33. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> Ray Smith wrote:
> >
> Commercial versions can invest money into researching and developing their
> version
> of the language. There would still be the opensource version if people want
> to incorperate the same features.
> Commercial versions could also act as testing grounds to see what features
> work.
> Commercial versions would typically employ more highly skilled programmers,
> developing better quality code.
>
> Not all, but some, if not many of the people who use the source for commercial
> products would likely want to support the product that seeded thier own, if
> only to help foster more free code that they could use.
> I don't see anything wrong with that.
>
> Take Apache for example. Many companies fund it because they use it and they
> want it to continue developing.
>
> > Even if 1 closed source version became the winner ... and everyone started
> > to
> > use that ... we are back to were we started from with 1 man running the
> > show.
>
> How would it be the same? Rob's source would still be available.
> How would it be unfair if a company invested $1,000's into advertising and
> development to make a quality product and expected to be compensated for that
> investment? It's not as simple as just cashing in on Robs work.
>
>
> > Which worked ... "ok" ... but nowhere near as productive as many of the
> > currenty open source competitors.
>
> That's just your opinion. You have any data to verify that?
>
>
> > > Here's a question for you Ray, not really related to this reply, but
> > > anyway:
> > > If a product is opensourced under LGPL, or GPL or whatever, the basic
> > > premise
> > > is 'tit for tat' as Linus Torvalds put it.
> > > How much 'tit' = 'tat'? At what point have I satisfied payment for the
> > > source
> > > to be used at my own discretion?
> >
> > Difficult question, not a single answer obviously.
> > Persoanlly, I'd be happy for people to make lots of money with Euphoria.
> > Making IDE's or debuggers, that "plug in" to the Euphoria interpreter.
> > And as long as these people always had the long term future of Euphoria in
> > mind I'm sure everyone would be happy.
>
> We could already make extraneous applications to support Eu and sell them, I
> don't see that happening. Before there can be supply, there needs to be
> demand.
>
>
> > But, unless the core is always open and free there will be occasions when
> > things won't work "well" together, or different versions make it difficult
> > for someone, of multiple efforts are required to keep "versions in synch"
> > etc.
>
> Without competition, you will be driving in a tunnel.
> > As long as a way forward exists where everyone works together for the same
> > goal
> > then I think everyone will be happy :)
>
> That's naive, IMO. People very rarely agree on things.
> Sounds like Communism :)
> In theory it's utopia, but in reality it just doesn't work.
Obviously we disagree, we could discuss this for years and you will have your
point of view and I'll have mine.
It seems Rob is happy with a BSD type license, so it seems pointless to
discuss this topic any furthur.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
P.S. Your comment about communism is absurd.
Agreeing on things and living in Utopia???
What have these comments got to do with choosing a license?
34. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Ray Smith wrote:
> Obviously we disagree, we could discuss this for years and you will have your
> point of view and I'll have mine.
Quite right.
That's the point. :)
~ The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra ~
35. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 05:11:33 -0700, Matt Lewis
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>In a word, confusing. Or at least complex.
Yes it does need significant rewording.
(it's not really a "licence" as such either, more a statement of
[hoped-for] behaviour/facts, not sure what else to call it.)
>The prospect of actual open source Euphoria makes positive less attractive to
>me.
<cheesy fake smile>
Tell me about it, I'm near suicidal over it.
</cheesy fake smile>
>The closed-sourceiness of the project is a bit of a turn off.
I half-hope the simplicity of rebuild might counter that.
The bizarre thing is it takes a bit of closed source to /force/ the
open-sourceiness that I want .
The closed source bit is clearly as turing-complete as the x86
instruction set; in my (blinkered) view, bugs aside, not really
any/much different to pd source that uses eg kernel32.dll.
Feel free to disagree.
>Not that I'm anti-closed source,
>per se, but I'm not personally planning on making any money off of
>Euphoria, and am more interested in the coding itself. Open source
>therefore suits me better, personally.
Fair point. I have to add value and I have to believe I can still do
so even in the face of this news. I have my work cut out, I know.
All I can plea is that you don't dismiss it out of hand; try it once
in a while as new versions arrive - at no cost, of course
I know full well it is not yet ready. It was always a daunting task,
even more so with this sudden body blow. Lastly there are no points
for advising me I am a fool to persist, I now have little choice.
Besides it is better to have a choice not a monopoly, surely.
I suppose one last vestige of hope is that Rob releases the source,
along with instructions on how to install and configure a suitable C
compiler, but continues to sell a pre-built "stable" binary, perhaps
more suited to commercial/total newbie use out-of-the-box.
I dunno, what would people think about a clause in the licence along
the lines of:
"you can give (or sell) a binary to anybody, just don't advertise it
[on EUforum or any pages directly linked from rapideuphoria.com]
as a "stable" release."
Obviously, old hands mostly already have that "beta" [1] , but a
steady trickle of new arrivals won't. That "steady trickle" may be
insignificant now, but might grow. Just another idea.
[1] and/or recompile the source, or friends they can ask direct
Regards,
Pete
36. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 05:11:33 -0700, Matt Lewis
> <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>
> >In a word, confusing. Or at least complex.
>
> Yes it does need significant rewording.
> (it's not really a "licence" as such either, more a statement of
> [hoped-for] behaviour/facts, not sure what else to call it.)
> >The prospect of actual open source Euphoria makes positive less attractive to
> >me.
> <cheesy fake smile>
> Tell me about it, I'm near suicidal over it.
> </cheesy fake smile>
> >The closed-sourceiness of the project is a bit of a turn off.
> I half-hope the simplicity of rebuild might counter that.
> The bizarre thing is it takes a bit of closed source to /force/ the
> open-sourceiness that I want .
Maybe once I figure out the [hoped-for] behaviour, you might be
right. :)
> The closed source bit is clearly as turing-complete as the x86
> instruction set; in my (blinkered) view, bugs aside, not really
> any/much different to pd source that uses eg kernel32.dll.
> Feel free to disagree.
I don't disagree, exactly. I guess that the difference is that I'd be
interested in changing some of the closed source, whereas I'm not
interested in changing kernel32.dll--nor any bit of the Linux kernel,
to be fair.
> Fair point. I have to add value and I have to believe I can still do
> so even in the face of this news. I have my work cut out, I know.
Good luck. It's not completely different than my work with OOEU, except
that I plan to use the RDS source, rather than build from scratch,
even though I've thought about doing that several times (and sort of
did using C# and .Net).
> All I can plea is that you don't dismiss it out of hand; try it once
> in a while as new versions arrive - at no cost, of course
I usually do.
> Besides it is better to have a choice not a monopoly, surely.
No arguments here.
> I suppose one last vestige of hope is that Rob releases the source,
> along with instructions on how to install and configure a suitable C
> compiler, but continues to sell a pre-built "stable" binary, perhaps
> more suited to commercial/total newbie use out-of-the-box.
I'm not sure about selling, but definitely offering binaries to be
available. In any case, I suspect that some others might start maintaining
packages for various linux/BSD distros. Maybe someone will come up
with an interactive installer (it's been talked about enough around
here) a-la cygwin.
> I dunno, what would people think about a clause in the licence along
> the lines of:
> "you can give (or sell) a binary to anybody, just don't advertise it
> [on EUforum or any pages directly linked from rapideuphoria.com]
> as a "stable" release."
Weirdly restrictive. I guess you're trying to keep from offending Rob
or something?
> Obviously, old hands mostly already have that "beta" [1] , but a
> steady trickle of new arrivals won't. That "steady trickle" may be
> insignificant now, but might grow. Just another idea.
> [1] and/or recompile the source, or friends they can ask direct
Sorry, you lost me. Which "beta?"
Matt Lewis
37. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
- Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk>
Sep 27, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 28, 2006
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:58:48 -0700, Matt Lewis
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>> I dunno, what would people think about a clause in the licence along
>> the lines of:
>> "you can give (or sell) a binary to anybody, just don't advertise it
>> as a "stable" release."
>
>Weirdly restrictive. I guess you're trying to keep from offending Rob
>or something?
LOL The idea is more to encourage all things to converge back to a
single point. I must admit in attempting to answer this I got a bit
lost in the Red Hat site first, then found Suse only sells boxed
versions, before settling on this to illustrate the rough idea I had:
http://www.mandriva.com/en/download
There are free versions, but also Mandriva Linux 2006 and Club
editions. The point was not so much that we can or should have that
next week, but the option should be left open to go that way or
something similar. See also below.
>> Obviously, old hands mostly already have that "beta" [1] , but a
>> steady trickle of new arrivals won't. That "steady trickle" may be
>> insignificant now, but might grow. Just another idea.
>> [1] and/or recompile the source, or friends they can ask direct
>
>Sorry, you lost me. Which "beta?"
The mental model I have is a bleeding edge version, which occasionally
gets tidied up into a beta version. If that passes muster, it gets
marked as stable (possibly without even recompiling it). Another take
is that a significant majority have to agree before a particular
version can be called "stable", not just one individual, as opposed to
my initial thought that only Rob gets to decide.
Another off-the-cuff thought: It may be enough that the name Euphoria
is trademarked, any derivative has to be called something else.
Suppose I wake up with a bad head one day (as I have been known to do)
and repackage/release "Euphoria 5.0 stable". No doubt some would get
confused, some decide to just ignore me, and some get hopping mad.
No harm in telling me I cannot do that in the first place, but then
again maybe not worthwhile. Ignore me, I'm just rambling out loud.
Regards,
Pete
38. Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:58:48 -0700, Matt Lewis
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>> >The closed-sourceiness of the project is a bit of a turn off.
Actually, I've just realised that I probably can release a completely
open-source interpreter, that would need to be rebuilt using the
closed-source hybrid interpreter/compiler freebie, or more likely a
specialised hack of that, possibly all under a restrictive licence
(expressly barring .exe creation other than the interpreter, say).
Obviously I would merge proven updates into the hybrid for next
release, and also have no qualms, other than size, about including
new opcodes that the official front end does not use.
I need to think about all this a bit more.
Regards,
Pete
