1. Open Euphoria Licence
There is an unresolved issue with GPL. It has to do with dynamically
linking/including code in mixed licencing scenarios.
Assuming that RDS goes for a GPL for Euphoria...
** does a non-GPL program that 'include's a Euphoria library have to also change
to a GPL licence?
** can a GPL program, such as RDS's own code, 'include' a non-GPL file?
The Free Software Foundation (who invented GPL) believe that any non-GPL program
that uses, or is used by, a GPL element must change to be become GPL too,
otherwise they are not allowed to use, or be used by, the GPL element.
Other experts disagree with this position. Some believe that using a GPL element
is not the same as modifying or translating the GPL element as the GPL element
itself is not changed in any manner.
As I say, this is unresolved and may be clarified when the GPL v3 is released
later this year. However, it may be better to adopt dual licences or a BSD type
of licence. The issue is whether RDS has problems with people taking their code,
modifying it and then not letting people access to their modifications when it is
distributed.
GPL tries to force every future modification to also be accessable to everyone.
BSD does not try to force this.
In all cases though,
** copyright is still with the actual author of the code, unless explicitly
transfered to a new owner.
** the licence type does not prohibit making a profit from any modification.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
Skype name: derek.j.parnell
2. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
Derek Parnell wrote:
One relevant discussion occurs at
http://www.itmanagersjournal.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1659203
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
Skype name: derek.j.parnell
3. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
Derek Parnell wrote:
>
> There is an unresolved issue with GPL. It has to do with dynamically
> linking/including
> code in mixed licencing scenarios.
Ahh yes, the ambiguities of the usage of "combined work" in the GPL...
> Assuming that RDS goes for a GPL for Euphoria...
>
> ** does a non-GPL program that 'include's a Euphoria library have to also
> change
> to a GPL licence?
Personally, I'd argue that since it is not well-defined in the current GPL that
if sued by the FSF or someone else it would be possible to argue that the FSF's
conception of "combined work" is invalid since it is not specifically defined as
such. Granted, I'm not a lawyer (although I am on a pre-law track).
> ** can a GPL program, such as RDS's own code, 'include' a non-GPL file?
This is easier to answer. It depends on the license of the original code. Code
under the X11, 3-clause BSD, an equally loose license, or public domain can be
used in GPLed code.
> The Free Software Foundation (who invented GPL) believe that any non-GPL
> program
> that uses, or is used by, a GPL element must change to be become GPL too,
> otherwise
> they are not allowed to use, or be used by, the GPL element.
>
> Other experts disagree with this position. Some believe that using a GPL
> element
> is not the same as modifying or translating the GPL element as the GPL element
> itself is not changed in any manner.
That explanation is completely correct as far as I can tell.
> As I say, this is unresolved and may be clarified when the GPL v3 is released
> later this year. However, it may be better to adopt dual licences or a BSD
> type
> of licence. The issue is whether RDS has problems with people taking their
> code,
> modifying it and then not letting people access to their modifications when
> it is distributed.
Yep, this is the essential issue. Can non-"free" work be allowed and/or to what
degree? There are other open source licenses as well that allow more freedom
and/or control than the GPL.
Another option is to create a new license for Euphoria.
> In all cases though,
> ** copyright is still with the actual author of the code, unless explicitly
> transfered to a new owner.
> ** the licence type does not prohibit making a profit from any modification.
Again, correct.
4. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
D. Newhall wrote:
>
> Derek Parnell wrote:
> >
> > There is an unresolved issue with GPL. It has to do with dynamically
> > linking/including
> > code in mixed licencing scenarios.
>
> Ahh yes, the ambiguities of the usage of "combined work" in the GPL...
OK,
The "runtime" portion of Euphoria needs to be LGPL'd or similiar to allow
distribution of a closed source program.
I agree 100% with this.
This is the whole reason why the LGPL was created.
I think it was used for something like the C library in Linux to allow
proprietry programs to link with the C Library.
If the base Euphoria interpreter is LGPL'd this allows anyone to write whatever
programs they require.
If someone wants to include a GPL'd Euphoria library in their app, their whole
app will need to be GPL'd.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
5. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
No, I haven't decided on a license yet,
but thanks for all the posts. I'm learning
a lot. The work on preparing the open source
release is going pretty well. It might be
ready in a week or so.
1. Regarding a closed-source (possibly for profit)
person or group taking advantage of Public Domain source.
The group could either grab pieces of the source
for some purpose, or grab the whole thing and make a competitor
to open source mainstream Euphoria.
There aren't that many pieces that would be of much
general value once isolated/extracated from the rest
of the source. Maybe there are a few run-time library routines
that would have some small value by themselves.
More likely, someone would grab the whole source
and then add a few proprietary closed-source
features to it. They would then try to attract
Euphoria users over to their "improved", partially closed-source,
but compatible version of Euphoria. I believe they
would have a lot of trouble attracting more than
a handful of people. Most users would want to
stick with the mainstream fully open source version, supported by
RDS and many others. Users would be suspicious of
the partially closed source nature of the new version
of Euphoria. Will the closed-source code
disappear and be unsupported when the developers get bored?
Who wants to risk many long hours
developing a program that only runs on an obscure variant of a
programming language? If users were also required to pay anything
for the new version, that would pretty much kill the new version
right there. They could only be asked to pay for the value of the
closed-source feature itself, since all the other functionality
would be free to them if they stayed with the mainstream Euphoria.
In time, open source developers would probably make their
own version of any successful, profit making feature. Meanwhile,
for a period of time, some Euphoria users might gain some
benefit from the closed-source version, and be glad that they
took the time to learn Euphoria. Is that so bad?
So I think the threat from closed-source and/or for-profit
forks of Euphoria is pretty small. The bigger threat is from
multiple open-source forks, splitting the community into
small pieces.
2. There's one special reason I can think of for allowing
partially closed-source versions of Euphoria. It's
the binding/shrouding encryption feature. Now that I'm
taking it out, it would be useful to some people to
insert a bit of closed-source code in the IL writer (binder)
and IL reader (backend.exe) that will encrypt their IL
using their own encryption algorithm. Both routines are
written in Euphoria, so it's easy to modify them. This is actually
better than the old system where everybody depended on the
same algorithm never being broken. Since everyone used that algorithm,
there was a high value to breaking it. Now everyone (who cares) could
have his own algorithm. It's a safer system.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
6. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> No, I haven't decided on a license yet,
> but thanks for all the posts. I'm learning
> a lot. The work on preparing the open source
> release is going pretty well. It might be
> ready in a week or so.
>
> 1. Regarding a closed-source (possibly for profit)
> person or group taking advantage of Public Domain source.
>
> The group could either grab pieces of the source
> for some purpose, or grab the whole thing and make a competitor
> to open source mainstream Euphoria.
>
> There aren't that many pieces that would be of much
> general value once isolated/extracated from the rest
> of the source. Maybe there are a few run-time library routines
> that would have some small value by themselves.
> More likely, someone would grab the whole source
> and then add a few proprietary closed-source
> features to it. They would then try to attract
> Euphoria users over to their "improved", partially closed-source,
> but compatible version of Euphoria. I believe they
> would have a lot of trouble attracting more than
> a handful of people. Most users would want to
> stick with the mainstream fully open source version, supported by
> RDS and many others. Users would be suspicious of
> the partially closed source nature of the new version
> of Euphoria. Will the closed-source code
> disappear and be unsupported when the developers get bored?
> Who wants to risk many long hours
> developing a program that only runs on an obscure variant of a
> programming language? If users were also required to pay anything
> for the new version, that would pretty much kill the new version
> right there. They could only be asked to pay for the value of the
> closed-source feature itself, since all the other functionality
> would be free to them if they stayed with the mainstream Euphoria.
>
> In time, open source developers would probably make their
> own version of any successful, profit making feature. Meanwhile,
> for a period of time, some Euphoria users might gain some
> benefit from the closed-source version, and be glad that they
> took the time to learn Euphoria. Is that so bad?
>
> So I think the threat from closed-source and/or for-profit
> forks of Euphoria is pretty small. The bigger threat is from
> multiple open-source forks, splitting the community into
> small pieces.
>
> 2. There's one special reason I can think of for allowing
> partially closed-source versions of Euphoria. It's
> the binding/shrouding encryption feature. Now that I'm
> taking it out, it would be useful to some people to
> insert a bit of closed-source code in the IL writer (binder)
> and IL reader (backend.exe) that will encrypt their IL
> using their own encryption algorithm. Both routines are
> written in Euphoria, so it's easy to modify them. This is actually
> better than the old system where everybody depended on the
> same algorithm never being broken. Since everyone used that algorithm,
> there was a high value to breaking it. Now everyone (who cares) could
> have his own algorithm. It's a safer system.
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
Hello Rob,
Really i couldnt have said it better myself 
I'd just like to add one small but significant point...
With everyone working on the 'public' version
i think it will be very unlikely that any private version could
become 'better' than the public one, meaning everyone everywhere
will most likely want the public version anyway.
On another topic..
My only concern is what happens to the public version once person
'A' inserts bugs 1,2,3, and 4 and person 'B' doesnt like that idea,
even though there is the appearance of more functionality.
I've seen a trend where people like to stick stuff in their
programs in order to increase apparent functionality only to
also insert bugs because they were in too much of a hurry to
get it in there. I'd like to see the 'public' version be as
bug free as the past versions released were...no rushing to get
features in there. If this cant happen i'll be forced to keep
my own version as will others 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: Open Euphoria Licence
- Posted by Mario Steele <eumario at trilake.net>
Sep 26, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 27, 2006
Al Getz wrote:
>
> Robert Craig wrote:
> >
> > No, I haven't decided on a license yet,
> > but thanks for all the posts. I'm learning
> > a lot. The work on preparing the open source
> > release is going pretty well. It might be
> > ready in a week or so.
> >
> > 1. Regarding a closed-source (possibly for profit)
> > person or group taking advantage of Public Domain source.
> >
> > The group could either grab pieces of the source
> > for some purpose, or grab the whole thing and make a competitor
> > to open source mainstream Euphoria.
> >
> > There aren't that many pieces that would be of much
> > general value once isolated/extracated from the rest
> > of the source. Maybe there are a few run-time library routines
> > that would have some small value by themselves.
> > More likely, someone would grab the whole source
> > and then add a few proprietary closed-source
> > features to it. They would then try to attract
> > Euphoria users over to their "improved", partially closed-source,
> > but compatible version of Euphoria. I believe they
> > would have a lot of trouble attracting more than
> > a handful of people. Most users would want to
> > stick with the mainstream fully open source version, supported by
> > RDS and many others. Users would be suspicious of
> > the partially closed source nature of the new version
> > of Euphoria. Will the closed-source code
> > disappear and be unsupported when the developers get bored?
> > Who wants to risk many long hours
> > developing a program that only runs on an obscure variant of a
> > programming language? If users were also required to pay anything
> > for the new version, that would pretty much kill the new version
> > right there. They could only be asked to pay for the value of the
> > closed-source feature itself, since all the other functionality
> > would be free to them if they stayed with the mainstream Euphoria.
> >
> > In time, open source developers would probably make their
> > own version of any successful, profit making feature. Meanwhile,
> > for a period of time, some Euphoria users might gain some
> > benefit from the closed-source version, and be glad that they
> > took the time to learn Euphoria. Is that so bad?
> >
> > So I think the threat from closed-source and/or for-profit
> > forks of Euphoria is pretty small. The bigger threat is from
> > multiple open-source forks, splitting the community into
> > small pieces.
> >
> > 2. There's one special reason I can think of for allowing
> > partially closed-source versions of Euphoria. It's
> > the binding/shrouding encryption feature. Now that I'm
> > taking it out, it would be useful to some people to
> > insert a bit of closed-source code in the IL writer (binder)
> > and IL reader (backend.exe) that will encrypt their IL
> > using their own encryption algorithm. Both routines are
> > written in Euphoria, so it's easy to modify them. This is actually
> > better than the old system where everybody depended on the
> > same algorithm never being broken. Since everyone used that algorithm,
> > there was a high value to breaking it. Now everyone (who cares) could
> > have his own algorithm. It's a safer system.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rob Craig
> > Rapid Deployment Software
> > <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
>
> Hello Rob,
>
> Really i couldnt have said it better myself
> I'd just like to add one small but significant point...
>
> With everyone working on the 'public' version
> i think it will be very unlikely that any private version could
> become 'better' than the public one, meaning everyone everywhere
> will most likely want the public version anyway.
>
> On another topic..
> My only concern is what happens to the public version once person
> 'A' inserts bugs 1,2,3, and 4 and person 'B' doesnt like that idea,
> even though there is the appearance of more functionality.
> I've seen a trend where people like to stick stuff in their
> programs in order to increase apparent functionality only to
> also insert bugs because they were in too much of a hurry to
> get it in there. I'd like to see the 'public' version be as
> bug free as the past versions released were...no rushing to get
> features in there. If this cant happen i'll be forced to keep
> my own version as will others im sure.
>
>
> Al
>
> E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria!
>
>
> My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's"
>
I also have to agree with what Rob said with all of thoes points. At the same
time however, I agree with what Al says to, as far as Bug infestation within Open
Source Code. I belive, a system would be needed in which is very similar to the
one Euphoria already endures, only with one significant point, being that there's
alot more turn around time on getting the bugs fixed, so that will shorten the
release times.
Something along the lines of this would be the appropriate way in which to
ensure that Bugs are properly handled.....
Versioning
As it stands now, Rob is using the Major and Minor Versions for releases of
Euphoria. Which is perfectly fine, except that when this goes open source,
there's going to be alot more people working on the interpreter, compared to just
one person. So the versioning system needs to be changed slightly.
The one I suggest, is Version Major, Version Minor, Patch Level and Source Code
State Tag. For an example, the first release of the Open EU Source code would be
versioned as: 3.0.0 Final. Then when people start making bug fixes, it would be
3.0.1 dev, etc, etc, when the bugs are fixed, and any new features are added,
it'd become 3.1.0 beta, and once all the code has been finalized, as being able
to work with minimal errors / bugs, it'd become 3.1.3 Final (Assuming that there
were 3 bug fixes that needed to be done.)
The next thing would be to keep up a Sub-Version or Common Versioning System, in
which to have Patch uploads, New Feature Uploads, and such, so that way, there's
a common space, in which the code can reside, there enters SourceForge for the
majority of that. This way, people can checkout the latest bleeding edge version
of Euphoria, to test on their system, and see what bugs they can find, or if
things are working pretty good. SourceForge also plays into that, with their Bug
Tracker System they have, that way, there's a centralized list of Bugs that have
been found, the procedures in which thoes bugs were found, and an Assignment area
for thoes working on the code, to say, Hey, I'll work on that. This way, you
don't have like 5 or 8 people working on the same problem at the same time,
though different input can always help.
Finally, a good check of everything by the Development Team, and Rob to ensure
that everything looks good, both on the table, and in the code, before the final
official release has been done. This saves alot of trouble with Open Source
Projects, to have a defined way of things to go, so that way, there's no
confusion.
Just my two cents...
Mario Steele
http://enchantedblade.trilake.net
Attaining World Dominiation, one byte at a time...
8. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
- Posted by Bernie Ryan <xotron at bluefrog.com>
Sep 26, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 27, 2006
I keep reading on this list about how you are going to need
version control and all these developers are going to do
this and that.
My question is who are all these developers and where are they
going to come from.
I only know of maybe 3 or 4 users on this list that have the skills
to modify and incorporate changes into the source that would make
Euphoria improvements.
I think that this open-source rush to judgement is blinding a lot
of ordinary users into beleving that something magic is going
to happen to Euphoria and 100 new developers are going suddenly
to appear at RDS door demanding a copy of the source so they can improve it.
How many times has someone said "I'am going to develop a open-source
version of Euphoria" and it died on the vine ?
Euphoria has to be found and accepted by many more users then
it presently has. Mean while you wait for the developers to show up
you are going to lose all the users that develop libraries because
the incentive for developing the libriares will disappear; ie
micro-bucks.
PS: Maybe well be lucky and mike the spike will return to
improve the langauge.
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
9. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
- Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net>
Sep 26, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 27, 2006
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
>
> I keep reading on this list about how you are going to need
> version control and all these developers are going to do
> this and that.
>
> My question is who are all these developers and where are they
> going to come from.
>
> I only know of maybe 3 or 4 users on this list that have the skills
> to modify and incorporate changes into the source that would make
> Euphoria improvements.
>
> I think that this open-source rush to judgement is blinding a lot
> of ordinary users into beleving that something magic is going
> to happen to Euphoria and 100 new developers are going suddenly
> to appear at RDS door demanding a copy of the source so they can improve it.
>
> How many times has someone said "I'am going to develop a open-source
> version of Euphoria" and it died on the vine ?
>
> Euphoria has to be found and accepted by many more users then
> it presently has. Mean while you wait for the developers to show up
> you are going to lose all the users that develop libraries because
> the incentive for developing the libriares will disappear; ie
> micro-bucks.
>
> PS: Maybe well be lucky and mike the spike will return to
> improve the langauge.
>
> Bernie
>
> My files in archive:
> WMOTOR, XMOTOR, W32ENGIN, MIXEDLIB, EU_ENGIN, WIN32ERU, WIN32API
>
> Can be downloaded here:
> <a
> href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan</a>
I can think of quite a few more than 4 or 5, but that will probably depend on
what type of license is employed. Just seems silly to me to shut so many doors,
when in all likeliness those other people will be just as likely to assist the
main project anyway.
People will learn how to make modifications.
It doesn't take a degree in compiler theory to tweak many things.
BTW, I know of at least half a dozen active projects, some open, some not, that
were at least inspired by Eu. A few of them are coming to fruition.
10. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
- Posted by Jeremy Peterson <ptl99 at hotmail.com>
Sep 26, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 27, 2006
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
>
> I keep reading on this list about how you are going to need
> version control and all these developers are going to do
> this and that.
>
> My question is who are all these developers and where are they
> going to come from.
>
> I only know of maybe 3 or 4 users on this list that have the skills
> to modify and incorporate changes into the source that would make
> Euphoria improvements.
>
> I think that this open-source rush to judgement is blinding a lot
> of ordinary users into beleving that something magic is going
> to happen to Euphoria and 100 new developers are going suddenly
> to appear at RDS door demanding a copy of the source so they can improve it.
>
> How many times has someone said "I'am going to develop a open-source
> version of Euphoria" and it died on the vine ?
>
> Euphoria has to be found and accepted by many more users then
> it presently has. Mean while you wait for the developers to show up
> you are going to lose all the users that develop libraries because
> the incentive for developing the libriares will disappear; ie
> micro-bucks.
>
> PS: Maybe well be lucky and mike the spike will return to
> improve the langauge.
>
> Bernie
>
> My files in archive:
> WMOTOR, XMOTOR, W32ENGIN, MIXEDLIB, EU_ENGIN, WIN32ERU, WIN32API
>
> Can be downloaded here:
> <a
> href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan</a>
I have to agree with you on lot of this, except for losing users because of the
Micro-Economy.
Or MTS coming back -
We'd be luckier if we all died of Bubonic Plague.
Jeremy
11. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
- Posted by Ray Smith <ray at RaymondSmith.com>
Sep 26, 2006
-
Last edited Sep 27, 2006
Bernie Ryan wrote:
> I keep reading on this list about how you are going to need
> version control and all these developers are going to do
> this and that.
I haven't seen much about that at all???
Who has said what they are going to do???
I don't think the discussions have started yet on what improvements everyone
would like to see .. wait until they do ;)
> My question is who are all these developers and where are they
> going to come from.
>
> I only know of maybe 3 or 4 users on this list that have the skills
> to modify and incorporate changes into the source that would make
> Euphoria improvements.
If 3 or 4 people actively helped develop Euphoria it would be a wonderful
start. I think even 2 or 3 good developers could do some amazing things.
> I think that this open-source rush to judgement is blinding a lot
> of ordinary users into beleving that something magic is going
> to happen to Euphoria and 100 new developers are going suddenly
> to appear at RDS door demanding a copy of the source so they can improve it.
> How many times has someone said "I'am going to develop a open-source
> version of Euphoria" and it died on the vine ?
>
> Euphoria has to be found and accepted by many more users then
> it presently has. Mean while you wait for the developers to show up
> you are going to lose all the users that develop libraries because
> the incentive for developing the libriares will disappear; ie
> micro-bucks.
I understand what you are saying.
I don't think Euphoria (from a users view - people programming "with" Euphoria)
will change much in the next 6 to 12 months.
It will really take that long for anything significant to happen .. maybe
longer.
Examples like Mozilla (Firefox) and OpenOffice.org come to mind which took
many years for stable, usable versions to become available.
The "Micro Economy" ... but everything you could get from Micro Economy bucks
will now be free!!!! It just allowed you to get free or disocunted Eu
products ... which are now free?? I am missing something?
I think I agree with some of what you say Bernie ... Open Source isn't a
silver bullet. Much work, oragnisation and time is required for valuable
things to be created. Open Source isn't a shortcut, it's just a different path.
All the best,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
12. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
Al Getz wrote:
>
> Robert Craig wrote:
> >
> > No, I haven't decided on a license yet,
> > but thanks for all the posts. I'm learning
> > a lot. The work on preparing the open source
> > release is going pretty well. It might be
> > ready in a week or so.
> >
> > 1. Regarding a closed-source (possibly for profit)
> > person or group taking advantage of Public Domain source.
> >
> > The group could either grab pieces of the source
> > for some purpose, or grab the whole thing and make a competitor
> > to open source mainstream Euphoria.
> >
> > There aren't that many pieces that would be of much
> > general value once isolated/extracated from the rest
> > of the source. Maybe there are a few run-time library routines
> > that would have some small value by themselves.
> > More likely, someone would grab the whole source
> > and then add a few proprietary closed-source
> > features to it. They would then try to attract
> > Euphoria users over to their "improved", partially closed-source,
> > but compatible version of Euphoria. I believe they
> > would have a lot of trouble attracting more than
> > a handful of people. Most users would want to
> > stick with the mainstream fully open source version, supported by
> > RDS and many others. Users would be suspicious of
> > the partially closed source nature of the new version
> > of Euphoria. Will the closed-source code
> > disappear and be unsupported when the developers get bored?
> > Who wants to risk many long hours
> > developing a program that only runs on an obscure variant of a
> > programming language? If users were also required to pay anything
> > for the new version, that would pretty much kill the new version
> > right there. They could only be asked to pay for the value of the
> > closed-source feature itself, since all the other functionality
> > would be free to them if they stayed with the mainstream Euphoria.
> >
> > In time, open source developers would probably make their
> > own version of any successful, profit making feature. Meanwhile,
> > for a period of time, some Euphoria users might gain some
> > benefit from the closed-source version, and be glad that they
> > took the time to learn Euphoria. Is that so bad?
> >
> > So I think the threat from closed-source and/or for-profit
> > forks of Euphoria is pretty small. The bigger threat is from
> > multiple open-source forks, splitting the community into
> > small pieces.
> >
> > 2. There's one special reason I can think of for allowing
> > partially closed-source versions of Euphoria. It's
> > the binding/shrouding encryption feature. Now that I'm
> > taking it out, it would be useful to some people to
> > insert a bit of closed-source code in the IL writer (binder)
> > and IL reader (backend.exe) that will encrypt their IL
> > using their own encryption algorithm. Both routines are
> > written in Euphoria, so it's easy to modify them. This is actually
> > better than the old system where everybody depended on the
> > same algorithm never being broken. Since everyone used that algorithm,
> > there was a high value to breaking it. Now everyone (who cares) could
> > have his own algorithm. It's a safer system.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rob Craig
> > Rapid Deployment Software
> > <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
>
> Hello Rob,
>
> Really i couldnt have said it better myself
> I'd just like to add one small but significant point...
>
> With everyone working on the 'public' version
> i think it will be very unlikely that any private version could
> become 'better' than the public one, meaning everyone everywhere
> will most likely want the public version anyway.
>
> On another topic..
> My only concern is what happens to the public version once person
> 'A' inserts bugs 1,2,3, and 4 and person 'B' doesnt like that idea,
> even though there is the appearance of more functionality.
> I've seen a trend where people like to stick stuff in their
> programs in order to increase apparent functionality only to
> also insert bugs because they were in too much of a hurry to
> get it in there. I'd like to see the 'public' version be as
> bug free as the past versions released were...no rushing to get
> features in there. If this cant happen i'll be forced to keep
> my own version as will others im sure.
>
>
> Al
>
> E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria!
>
>
> My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's"
>
If there is someone to keep track of the official release, like Linus does with
the Linux Kernel
there shouldn't be much of a problem. Basically all patches to the official
release could be scrutinized
, not heavily, so that it doesn't make it in if it is going to break anything.
Now this will still allow for the unofficial branches to maintain themselves
while keeping the official
release as clean as possible.
Rob, have you looked into the GPL v3? I'm sure it's probably been mentioned to
you already but I'll re-mention it.
In my opinion you shouldn't release Eu as PD, as that can strip you of the
copyright. You want to hold on to the
copyright. The GPL will allow this and still allow you to make money from Eu
while still allowing everyone else
to do as they please with the code ie. branch off to new versions.
Now the thing about the Community fragmenting is likely, but (and I know I
haven't been around much) we have a
pretty tight-nit group of "Eusers" in this community, unlike other languages. I
think most will want to stay
with the official release for production work and play with the other branches
in their spare time, that's how
I myself will be. Your decision to Open the source actually to be truthful kinda
shocked me, as I was saving
my money and looking forward to buying the upgrade. That's not to say I disagree
with your decision though.
13. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
Damien Hodgkin wrote:
[SNIP]
> In my opinion you shouldn't release Eu as PD, as that can strip you of the
> copyright.
False. PD is not an unrestricted copyright grant.
The copyrights still belong to Rob, he has just given permission for others to
use them as well. Not have them, use.
~ The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra ~
14. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> Damien Hodgkin wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > In my opinion you shouldn't release Eu as PD, as that can strip you of the
> > copyright.
>
>
> False. PD is not an unrestricted copyright grant.
> The copyrights still belong to Rob, he has just given permission for others
> to use them as well. Not have them, use.
from: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
"Public Domain
Being in the public domain is not a license--rather, it means the material
is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though,
if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive
non-copyleft free software license. Public domain status is compatible with
the GNU GPL. "
... which would indicate (to me?) that putting source code into the
Public Domain means giving up your copyright???
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://raymondSmith.com
15. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
Ray Smith wrote:
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
> >
> > Damien Hodgkin wrote:
> >
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > > In my opinion you shouldn't release Eu as PD, as that can strip you of the
> > > copyright.
> >
> >
> > False. PD is not an unrestricted copyright grant.
> > The copyrights still belong to Rob, he has just given permission for others
> > to use them as well. Not have them, use.
>
> from: <a
> href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html</a>
>
> "Public Domain
> Being in the public domain is not a license--rather, it means the material
> is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though,
> if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive
> non-copyleft free software license. Public domain status is compatible with
>
> the GNU GPL. "
>
> ... which would indicate (to me?) that putting source code into the
> Public Domain means giving up your copyright???
>
> Regards,
>
> Ray Smith
> <a href="http://raymondSmith.com">http://raymondSmith.com</a>
Here's an excerpt from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Disclaimer_of_interest
"Revocability where no consideration
A "bare license" unsupported by consideration is (theoretically) revocable at
will. A license, generally in the law, is permission to do something that would
ordinarily be a trespass. For example, when a friend is invited to a home for
coffee, the friend has a license to remain in the house. The friend can be kicked
out of the house at any time. However, if the friend has paid money and signed a
contract to live in the house for a month, he has the right to stay."
~ The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra ~
16. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
Chris Bensler wrote:
> Here's an excerpt from wikipedia:
> <a
> href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Disclaimer_of_interest">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Disclaimer_of_interest</a>
>
> "Revocability where no consideration
>
> A "bare license" unsupported by consideration is (theoretically) revocable at
> will. A license, generally in the law, is permission to do something that
> would
> ordinarily be a trespass. For example, when a friend is invited to a home for
> coffee, the friend has a license to remain in the house. The friend can be
> kicked
> out of the house at any time. However, if the friend has paid money and signed
> a contract to live in the house for a month, he has the right to stay."
Nice link,
After reading that it seems releasing software into the Public Domain isn't
as clear cut as it "may" seem.
It seems unclear even as to how to enter software into the Public Domain!!!
There are many other licenses (BSD, Apache, X11 etc) which would seem to give
unrestricted use, but not the legal ambiguity of the Public Domain.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
17. Re: Open Euphoria Licence
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
>
> I keep reading on this list about how you are going to need
> version control and all these developers are going to do
> this and that.
I think a centrally managed version control will be important. How often
have we asked Rob about what he's done? This will be a more open way
to share that info, since the code and all the changes can be shared.
Anyone can grab the latest version from the repository and build or modify
to their heart's content (my vote is for subversion, in case anyone is
counting).
Not everyone is interested in doing that, but the same can be said of
any other project. How many people do you think look at the Firefox
CVS compared to the user base? Not many. But so what?
> My question is who are all these developers and where are they
> going to come from.
>
> I only know of maybe 3 or 4 users on this list that have the skills
> to modify and incorporate changes into the source that would make
> Euphoria improvements.
I can think of a few more than that. And there are some who are no longer
regulars on this list who might become interested again by the prospect
of the source opening up.
> I think that this open-source rush to judgement is blinding a lot
> of ordinary users into beleving that something magic is going
> to happen to Euphoria and 100 new developers are going suddenly
> to appear at RDS door demanding a copy of the source so they can improve it.
What if it's only 5? What if I want to make my own version for my own
use? I don't understand what your complaint is.
> How many times has someone said "I'am going to develop a open-source
> version of Euphoria" and it died on the vine ?
Well, now we have the real deal. The hard stuff is available, and we can
work on polishing and adding stuff to a well constructed base.
> Euphoria has to be found and accepted by many more users then
> it presently has. Mean while you wait for the developers to show up
> you are going to lose all the users that develop libraries because
> the incentive for developing the libriares will disappear; ie
> micro-bucks.
Is that why you develop libraries? Is the goal to get Euphoria for free,
or just for the reputation aspect? Because now you definitely get the
code for free, and Rob has said that he plans to continue the MicroEconomy
in some fashion, so there'll still be a way to build a reputation for your
code.
Seriously, why is this making you so grumpy? I get the feeling that there's
some other issue or motive that you haven't mentioned here.
Matt Lewis
