1. EU 2.4, 2.5 and Open Source
- Posted by Rod Damon <roddamon at bellsouth.net>
Sep 30, 2006
-
Last edited Oct 01, 2006
Greetings EU community,
Question. After EU goes open source, will programs written using
versions 2.4 or 2.5 also be required to be open source? Not existing
programs, but programs written in the future using versions 2.4 & 2.5.
I write commercial programs to sell. I'm concerned and so is at
least one other well known EU author.
This could cause me to abandon Euphoria if that is the case.
Rod
2. Re: EU 2.4, 2.5 and Open Source
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
Sep 30, 2006
-
Last edited Oct 01, 2006
Rod Damon wrote:
> Question. After EU goes open source, will programs written using
> versions 2.4 or 2.5 also be required to be open source? Not existing
> programs, but programs written in the future using versions 2.4 & 2.5.
Definitely not, and not if you use 3.0, or a future version either.
The discussion we've been having only concerns those
who might wish to take the (soon to be open) source code
to the Euphoria interpreter, binder, translator etc. and modify it.
Some people think those modifications should be forced to be
open source, well others don't mind if they are closed source.
This has nothing to do with those who simply wish to
use Euphoria to develop applications. If you, like most people,
are simply a user of Euphoria, and not a would-be modifier of the
internals, then relax.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
3. Re: EU 2.4, 2.5 and Open Source
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> Rod Damon wrote:
> > Question. After EU goes open source, will programs written using
> > versions 2.4 or 2.5 also be required to be open source? Not existing
> > programs, but programs written in the future using versions 2.4 & 2.5.
>
> Definitely not, and not if you use 3.0, or a future version either.
> The discussion we've been having only concerns those
> who might wish to take the (soon to be open) source code
> to the Euphoria interpreter, binder, translator etc. and modify it.
> Some people think those modifications should be forced to be
> open source, while others don't mind if they are closed source.
> This has nothing to do with those who simply wish to
> use Euphoria to develop applications. If you, like most people,
> are simply a user of Euphoria, and not a would-be modifier of the
> internals, then relax.
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
I'm glad that is cleared up for those concerned, but I cannot understand for the
life of me why anyone would think that would be the case. That is, I cannot
understand why anyone would think that their code not related to improving or
extending the interpreter would have to be open source.
I don't know of any open source (or even any closed source language, for that
matter) that would require that.
--
"Any programming problem can be solved by adding a level of indirection."
--anonymous
"Any performance problem can be solved by removing a level of indirection."
--M. Haertel
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
