1. request to ban 'no source' contributions
I wrote:
>
> Of course, I could write code in VB and submit an EXE and it would probably
> be accepted to the archives... <shrug>
>
Now that I've thought about it more, I'd actually like to suggest that
'no source' submissions not be allowed to the Eu archives. My feeling
is that the archives should be a resource for learning. If I submitted
a program that was described as a replacment for ascii.ex but was a
'no source' EXE that actually deleted your HD or was a trojan or virus
or what-have-you... I mean, does RDS actually review every submission?
If you want to secure your source then it should be held on your own site
with your own terms. Maybe a place like download.com or tucows.com would
suit your needs if you don't like to share.
Does anybody else see my point here or is it just me? Of course, I'm not
going to run anything I can't edit (or trust) so I guess I don't have to
worry but since we are on the topic of 'newbies' and such...
-- Brian
(just trying to look out for those less-inclined to protect themselves)
PS: This is not intended to be a personal attack on Joe or his VE. This
is only a suggestion that I hope will be backed by the community.
2. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
I've always thought that.
Michelle Rogers
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Broker" <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
To: <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:25 AM
Subject: request to ban 'no source' contributions
>
>
> posted by: Brian Broker <bkb at cnw.com>
>
> I wrote:
> >
> > Of course, I could write code in VB and submit an EXE and it would
probably
> > be accepted to the archives... <shrug>
> >
>
> Now that I've thought about it more, I'd actually like to suggest that
> 'no source' submissions not be allowed to the Eu archives. My feeling
> is that the archives should be a resource for learning. If I submitted
> a program that was described as a replacment for ascii.ex but was a
> 'no source' EXE that actually deleted your HD or was a trojan or virus
> or what-have-you... I mean, does RDS actually review every submission?
>
> If you want to secure your source then it should be held on your own site
> with your own terms. Maybe a place like download.com or tucows.com would
> suit your needs if you don't like to share.
>
> Does anybody else see my point here or is it just me? Of course, I'm not
> going to run anything I can't edit (or trust) so I guess I don't have to
> worry but since we are on the topic of 'newbies' and such...
>
> -- Brian
> (just trying to look out for those less-inclined to protect themselves)
>
> PS: This is not intended to be a personal attack on Joe or his VE. This
> is only a suggestion that I hope will be backed by the community.
>
>
>
>
3. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
dam i really should read forum messages bottom to top,
Brian wrote:
PS: This is not intended to be a personal attack on Joe or his VE. This
is only a suggestion that I hope will be backed by the community.
I must now apologise for my previous post, i believe RDS to test every
contribution, if not they would probably be liable for attacks as i
have never seen a disclaimer.
4. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
Brian Broker wrote:
> Now that I've thought about it more, I'd actually like to suggest that
> 'no source' submissions not be allowed to the Eu archives. My feeling
> is that the archives should be a resource for learning.
The archives are simply that: an archive of Euphoria programs,
source or not. Source is not required to show-off a Euphoria program's
features.
I do understand your concern about running closed-source programs. However,
I trust that Rob would not post something to the archive that will be
damaging to my PC. That's why I don't mind closed-source programs...
they're coming from a site I can trust.
> If you want to secure your source then it should be held on your own site
> with your own terms. Maybe a place like download.com or tucows.com would
> suit your needs if you don't like to share.
I think download.com charges for hosting (right William?). I don't know
about the others.
Software authors are not required to share their source. I've got several
contributions in the archive, all open source, but there are projects on
the board that I will submit that I will not reveal the source.
(I also have projects I won't (or can't) submit to the archive that won't
be open source... code written under contract for commercial reasons. :) )
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
5. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
----- Original Message -----
From: "cklester" <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
To: <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
>
>
> posted by: cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
>
> Brian Broker wrote:
>
> > Now that I've thought about it more, I'd actually like to suggest that
> > 'no source' submissions not be allowed to the Eu archives. My feeling
> > is that the archives should be a resource for learning.
>
> The archives are simply that: an archive of Euphoria programs,
> source or not. Source is not required to show-off a Euphoria program's
> features.
>
> I do understand your concern about running closed-source programs.
However,
> I trust that Rob would not post something to the archive that will be
> damaging to my PC. That's why I don't mind closed-source programs...
> they're coming from a site I can trust.
>
> > If you want to secure your source then it should be held on your own
site
> > with your own terms. Maybe a place like download.com or tucows.com
would
> > suit your needs if you don't like to share.
>
> I think download.com charges for hosting (right William?). I don't know
> about the others.
>
Grrrr... damn right... for the 'minimum, basic, no good, crap' service, its
$70 or $90 per submission. That includes both new programs and upgrades. >8(
> Software authors are not required to share their source. I've got several
> contributions in the archive, all open source, but there are projects on
> the board that I will submit that I will not reveal the source.
>
> (I also have projects I won't (or can't) submit to the archive that won't
> be open source... code written under contract for commercial reasons. :) )
>
> -=ck
> "Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
> http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
>
>
>
>
6. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
Brian Broker wrote:
> Now that I've thought about it more, I'd actually like to suggest that
> 'no source' submissions not be allowed to the Eu archives. My feeling
> is that the archives should be a resource for learning. If I submitted
> a program that was described as a replacment for ascii.ex but was a
> 'no source' EXE that actually deleted your HD or was a trojan or virus
> or what-have-you... I mean, does RDS actually review every submission?
I think Rob runs 'em thru various anti-virus programs, but I don't know
how effective that might be against reasonably clever code. I could
imagine writing a program which runs perfectly well and harmlessly
until some future date, then does its dirty work. I don't see how
Rob would be able to catch that.
So maybe the notation which is already on those "no-source" submissions
should be a link to a disclaimer page which gives reasons why running
no-source code might be dangerous, plus all the reasons why submitting
source is a *good idea*.
Irv
7. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
William Heimbigner wrote:
> > I think download.com charges for hosting (right William?). I don't know
> > about the others.
> >
> Grrrr... damn right... for the 'minimum, basic, no good, crap' service, its
> $70 or $90 per submission. That includes both new programs and upgrades. >8(
They're insane. There are plenty of free places to post your programs,
and if you're willing to pay $90, you can get your own domaian and
a year's worth of cheap web hosting. In a week or two, anyone who
can google will be able to find you.
Irv
8. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
----- Original Message -----
From: "irv mullins" <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
To: <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
>
>
> posted by: irv mullins <irvm at ellijay.com>
>
> William Heimbigner wrote:
>
> > > I think download.com charges for hosting (right William?). I don't
know
> > > about the others.
> > >
> > Grrrr... damn right... for the 'minimum, basic, no good, crap' service,
its
> > $70 or $90 per submission. That includes both new programs and upgrades.
>8(
>
> They're insane. There are plenty of free places to post your programs,
> and if you're willing to pay $90, you can get your own domaian and
> a year's worth of cheap web hosting. In a week or two, anyone who
> can google will be able to find you.
>
Thank you for pointing out something that was already known to all of us.
You are such a benefit to all of us, you and your keen sense of the obvious.
> Irv
>
>
>
>
9. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
William Heimbigner wrote:
> You are such a benefit to all of us, you and your keen sense...
Thanks, very perceptive of you!
Irv
10. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
THOSE ARE PRODUCTS NOT CONTRIBUTIONS
----- Original Message -----
From: "cklester"
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
>
> posted by: cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
>
> Brian Broker wrote:
>
> > Now that I've thought about it more, I'd actually like to suggest that
> > 'no source' submissions not be allowed to the Eu archives. My feeling
> > is that the archives should be a resource for learning.
>
> The archives are simply that: an archive of Euphoria programs,
> source or not. Source is not required to show-off a Euphoria program's
> features.
Then there should be at least a flag for "source" just like Linux, Generic,
DOS, Win32.
> I do understand your concern about running closed-source programs.
However,
> I trust that Rob would not post something to the archive that will be
> damaging to my PC. That's why I don't mind closed-source programs...
> they're coming from a site I can trust.
Unless Rob himself gets the source and then inspects it. This can't be
guaranteed
and even at that. Finding a malicious intent can be very difficult and
tricky if the
person is truley intent. Burying code within a great app isn't beyond one
that
wants to destroy. Even if it is extremely unlikely.
I don't tend to fear this simply because the number of bad people in the
world
is greatly out numbered by good people. I feel the chances are just to
small
and I also tend not to use closed source items. So my position is doubly
safe.
> > If you want to secure your source then it should be held on your own
site
> > with your own terms. Maybe a place like download.com or tucows.com
would
> > suit your needs if you don't like to share.
I agree
> I think download.com charges for hosting (right William?). I don't know
> about the others.
Oh, so there aren't any free release areas out there? I seriously doubt
that
besides. download.com, tucows and friends have a much larger audience
than our growing Euphoria community. Free webspace is readily available.
Though it is usually attached to things like. pop ups, pop unders, banners
and many other evil advertising schemes. But they still remain, and are
quite
usable. There aren't any free tickets or lunches in this world.
> Software authors are not required to share their source. I've got several
> contributions in the archive, all open source, but there are projects on
> the board that I will submit that I will not reveal the source.
Fine. I still don't like the idea of the source not being released and you
have
your own site and webspace. I'm not saying not to tell the community.
The EuForum still stands. I still feel that Euphorian advertising should be
allowed in here. It is rare to occur and largely ignored but.. I see no
harm
in it. Besides we all have to put food on the table somehow.
Personally if I want it to be closed source I simply won't release it.
or I put it on my own space and find ways to promote it. Those are products
not contributions
Hmm, that sounded so good and to the point I think I will say it again.
THOSE ARE PRODUCTS NOT CONTRIBUTIONS
> (I also have projects I won't (or can't) submit to the archive that won't
> be open source... code written under contract for commercial reasons. :) )
I fully understand this. It happens all the time and we rarely hear
anything
of it. Big whoop. just because you write some things that are open
doesn't mean that everything you write has to be open. Still gotta put food
on the table. Euphoria isn't open but its includes are. (gets.e)
> -=ck
> "Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
> http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
See, you have a site. Shut up.. sorry, that last part just came out.
I didn't mean the shut up. Any how. Unkmar over and out
unkmar
THOSE ARE PRODUCTS NOT CONTRIBUTIONS
11. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
William Heimbigner wrote:
> Thank you for pointing out something that was already known to all of us.
> You are such a benefit to all of us, you and your keen sense of the obvious.
>
Is there something in the air? Man, the sarcasm has just been flowing
freely around here lately!
Can't we all just get along? ;)
Jonas Temple
http://www.yhti.net/~jktemple
12. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
Unkmar wrote:
> THOSE ARE PRODUCTS NOT CONTRIBUTIONS
A contribution CAN be a closed-source program! There's nothing about the
word "contribution" that indicates "open source" or "free."
It's a "program archive," not a "code donation archive."
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
13. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
the whole purpose of the release of VE was to benefit people who don't
want to type the same code over and over, not to start a open source
vs compiled code debate. i wonder if david cuny, and judith experienced
this sort of backlash when trying to release a beneficial tool into
the euphoria
community
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:00:03 -0700, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
>
>
> posted by: cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
>
> Unkmar wrote:
>
> > THOSE ARE PRODUCTS NOT CONTRIBUTIONS
>
> A contribution CAN be a closed-source program! There's nothing about the
> word "contribution" that indicates "open source" or "free."
>
> It's a "program archive," not a "code donation archive."
>
> -=ck
> "Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
> http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
>
>
>
>
>
14. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
spent memory wrote:
> the whole purpose of the release of VE was to benefit people who don't
> want to type the same code over and over, not to start a open source
> vs compiled code debate. i wonder if david cuny, and judith experienced
> this sort of backlash when trying to release a beneficial tool into
> the euphoria community
Well, their contributions were open source. ;)
Besides, your VE is a great idea. If I wasn't using the IDE, I'd prolly
try using your program for development.
Don't let a few grumblers get ya down.
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
15. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
thanx, yeah your right, back to the drawing board
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:14:35 -0700, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
>
> posted by: cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
>
> spent memory wrote:
>
> > the whole purpose of the release of VE was to benefit people who don't
> > want to type the same code over and over, not to start a open source
> > vs compiled code debate. i wonder if david cuny, and judith experienced
> > this sort of backlash when trying to release a beneficial tool into
> > the euphoria community
>
> Well, their contributions were open source. ;)
>
> Besides, your VE is a great idea. If I wasn't using the IDE, I'd prolly
> try using your program for development.
>
> Don't let a few grumblers get ya down.
>
>
> -=ck
> "Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
> http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
>
>
>
>
16. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
David was very early and I believe his items are open.
Judith appeared much later but not late enough that the number of
euphorians and the number of years of closed contributions had
reached the apparent critical mass that your contribution has reached.
in other words. Bad timing. If you had waited a few months it
would have been someone other than you.
You shouldn't be taking it personal. Of course, You are going to
anyway, because you are new and you want it. It is all about
me. me me me. All about me. I am the only one that exists or
matters. So if anyone says anything that can be anywhere close to
being assumed as attack on poor little ole me then. Me Me me
don't attack Me. It's all about me. I think I get my point across now.
I grew older and met adults. They are just older children.
Most are still very self-centered.
unkmar
----- Original Message -----
From: "spent memory" <spent.memory at gmail.com>
To: <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
>
>
> the whole purpose of the release of VE was to benefit people who don't
> want to type the same code over and over, not to start a open source
> vs compiled code debate. i wonder if david cuny, and judith experienced
> this sort of backlash when trying to release a beneficial tool into
> the euphoria
> community
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:00:03 -0700, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > posted by: cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
> >
> > Unkmar wrote:
> >
> > > THOSE ARE PRODUCTS NOT CONTRIBUTIONS
> >
> > A contribution CAN be a closed-source program! There's nothing about the
> > word "contribution" that indicates "open source" or "free."
> >
> > It's a "program archive," not a "code donation archive."
> >
> > -=ck
> > "Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
> > http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
> >
> >
>
>
>
17. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
And you are likely going to assume that the ole me me me
bit is directed at you. It isn't. It is aimed at the general
population. We all tend to have this self-centered attitude.
Including, you guessed it. ME :)
unkmar
18. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
nice critique unkmar, phsycoanalysis is a field best left to phsycologists
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:20:02 -0400, Lucius Hilley
<l3euphoria at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> David was very early and I believe his items are open.
> Judith appeared much later but not late enough that the number of
> euphorians and the number of years of closed contributions had
> reached the apparent critical mass that your contribution has reached.
> in other words. Bad timing. If you had waited a few months it
> would have been someone other than you.
>
> You shouldn't be taking it personal. Of course, You are going to
> anyway, because you are new and you want it. It is all about
> me. me me me. All about me. I am the only one that exists or
> matters. So if anyone says anything that can be anywhere close to
> being assumed as attack on poor little ole me then. Me Me me
> don't attack Me. It's all about me. I think I get my point across now.
>
> I grew older and met adults. They are just older children.
> Most are still very self-centered.
>
> unkmar
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "spent memory" <spent.memory at gmail.com>
> To: <EUforum at topica.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:08 AM
> Subject: Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
>
> >
> > the whole purpose of the release of VE was to benefit people who don't
> > want to type the same code over and over, not to start a open source
> > vs compiled code debate. i wonder if david cuny, and judith experienced
> > this sort of backlash when trying to release a beneficial tool into
> > the euphoria
> > community
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:00:03 -0700, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > posted by: cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
> > >
> > > Unkmar wrote:
> > >
> > > > THOSE ARE PRODUCTS NOT CONTRIBUTIONS
> > >
> > > A contribution CAN be a closed-source program! There's nothing about the
> > > word "contribution" that indicates "open source" or "free."
> > >
> > > It's a "program archive," not a "code donation archive."
> > >
> > > -=ck
> > > "Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
> > > http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
19. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
specially when u just turned 23 :/
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:30:56 +1000, spent memory <spent.memory at gmail.com>
wrote:
> nice critique unkmar, phsycoanalysis is a field best left to phsycologists
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:20:02 -0400, Lucius Hilley
> <l3euphoria at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > David was very early and I believe his items are open.
> > Judith appeared much later but not late enough that the number of
> > euphorians and the number of years of closed contributions had
> > reached the apparent critical mass that your contribution has reached.
> > in other words. Bad timing. If you had waited a few months it
> > would have been someone other than you.
> >
> > You shouldn't be taking it personal. Of course, You are going to
> > anyway, because you are new and you want it. It is all about
> > me. me me me. All about me. I am the only one that exists or
> > matters. So if anyone says anything that can be anywhere close to
> > being assumed as attack on poor little ole me then. Me Me me
> > don't attack Me. It's all about me. I think I get my point across now.
> >
> > I grew older and met adults. They are just older children.
> > Most are still very self-centered.
> >
> > unkmar
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "spent memory" <spent.memory at gmail.com>
> > To: <EUforum at topica.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
> >
> > >
> > > the whole purpose of the release of VE was to benefit people who don't
> > > want to type the same code over and over, not to start a open source
> > > vs compiled code debate. i wonder if david cuny, and judith experienced
> > > this sort of backlash when trying to release a beneficial tool into
> > > the euphoria
> > > community
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:00:03 -0700, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > posted by: cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
> > > >
> > > > Unkmar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > THOSE ARE PRODUCTS NOT CONTRIBUTIONS
> > > >
> > > > A contribution CAN be a closed-source program! There's nothing about the
> > > > word "contribution" that indicates "open source" or "free."
> > > >
> > > > It's a "program archive," not a "code donation archive."
> > > >
> > > > -=ck
> > > > "Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
> > > > http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
20. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
----- Original Message -----
From: "irv mullins"
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
>
> posted by: irv mullins <irvm at ellijay.com>
>
> William Heimbigner wrote:
>
> > > I think download.com charges for hosting (right William?). I don't
know
> > > about the others.
> > >
> > Grrrr... damn right... for the 'minimum, basic, no good, crap' service,
its
> > $70 or $90 per submission. That includes both new programs and upgrades.
>8(
>
> They're insane. There are plenty of free places to post your programs,
> and if you're willing to pay $90, you can get your own domaian and
> a year's worth of cheap web hosting. In a week or two, anyone who
> can google will be able to find you.
>
> Irv
Yeah, but many people are either 2 stupid to know that or to eager to
care or
some other lame excuse why they pay through the nose for something they
could
have done with much less money. After all. tucows and download.com still
exist
right?
unkmar
21. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
spent memory wrote:
>
> the whole purpose of the release of VE was to benefit people who don't
> want to type the same code over and over, not to start a open source
> vs compiled code debate. i wonder if david cuny, and judith experienced
> this sort of backlash when trying to release a beneficial tool into
> the euphoria
> community
>
And it's a good idea (what VE is trying to do). I've thought of doing
something similar myself. I'm not sure what backlash you're referring
to. What I saw here was that someone tried your program, but it didn't
work on his machine. He let you know, and also wondered aloud about why
there was no source. You got angry, attacked him, then reread (or
finished reading?) his post, and apologized. I chimed in to let you know
how the archives are generally viewed around here (I've been a part of
the Euphoria community for about 6 years now). Some other people
debated the merits of releasing source code and alternatives to releasing
stuff at RDS' site. Thread wandering is just part of internet culture,
not to mention general communication.
Most things that get released are basically ignored. A few people might
try them out, and then forget about them. The things that are really
useful to many people tend to live on. The only closed source contribution
that I can recall off the top of my head is EuWinGUI by Andrea Cini. Lots
of people liked this (it was based on a shareware C++ lib that she had
written), but she left the Euphorian fold, so it's no longer being
developed (others have alluded to this phenomenon). I think it's also
not being used as much as it was while she was around (I could be wrong).
Another closed source contribution that I think had lots of potential was
Pete's print preview library. I was interested in putting that into EDB,
but the licensing wasn't compatible with what I wanted to do (and frankly,
it was difficult figuring out how it all worked). I guess this sounds
selfish, but had Pete released it under a more open license, I would
have likely included it, and would have devoted significant micro
economy dollars. There are several other libs that I used in EDB in
that manner.
One thing all long lived contributions have in common, is that the users
find lots of things wrong with them, and ask for lots of bug fixes and
new features (not always in the most polite fashion). Many users write
the code themselves and submit them to the author, who is free
to ignore the suggestions. Occaisionally, a fork of a project survives
for some time, but the two usually converge after a while.
Matt Lewis
PS Please hit the Quote Original Text button (assuming you're using
the web interface). In a non-threaded forum like this, it can be
difficult to figure out who/what you're replying to.
22. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
the guy who had the problem with my program added me in msn and i am currently
helping him (helping me) debug my program, it was another user Brian
whom i'd harldy call attacked and if you read into what he said and
apply it to something you worked on for weeks maybe you would start to
see what i'm all about
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:10:12 -0700, Matt Lewis <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
wrote:
>
> posted by: Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at yahoo.com>
>
> spent memory wrote:
> >
> > the whole purpose of the release of VE was to benefit people who don't
> > want to type the same code over and over, not to start a open source
> > vs compiled code debate. i wonder if david cuny, and judith experienced
> > this sort of backlash when trying to release a beneficial tool into
> > the euphoria
> > community
> >
>
> And it's a good idea (what VE is trying to do). I've thought of doing
> something similar myself. I'm not sure what backlash you're referring
> to. What I saw here was that someone tried your program, but it didn't
> work on his machine. He let you know, and also wondered aloud about why
> there was no source. You got angry, attacked him, then reread (or
> finished reading?) his post, and apologized. I chimed in to let you know
> how the archives are generally viewed around here (I've been a part of
> the Euphoria community for about 6 years now). Some other people
> debated the merits of releasing source code and alternatives to releasing
> stuff at RDS' site. Thread wandering is just part of internet culture,
> not to mention general communication.
>
> Most things that get released are basically ignored. A few people might
> try them out, and then forget about them. The things that are really
> useful to many people tend to live on. The only closed source contribution
> that I can recall off the top of my head is EuWinGUI by Andrea Cini. Lots
> of people liked this (it was based on a shareware C++ lib that she had
> written), but she left the Euphorian fold, so it's no longer being
> developed (others have alluded to this phenomenon). I think it's also
> not being used as much as it was while she was around (I could be wrong).
>
> Another closed source contribution that I think had lots of potential was
> Pete's print preview library. I was interested in putting that into EDB,
> but the licensing wasn't compatible with what I wanted to do (and frankly,
> it was difficult figuring out how it all worked). I guess this sounds
> selfish, but had Pete released it under a more open license, I would
> have likely included it, and would have devoted significant micro
> economy dollars. There are several other libs that I used in EDB in
> that manner.
>
> One thing all long lived contributions have in common, is that the users
> find lots of things wrong with them, and ask for lots of bug fixes and
> new features (not always in the most polite fashion). Many users write
> the code themselves and submit them to the author, who is free
> to ignore the suggestions. Occaisionally, a fork of a project survives
> for some time, but the two usually converge after a while.
>
> Matt Lewis
>
> PS Please hit the Quote Original Text button (assuming you're using
> the web interface). In a non-threaded forum like this, it can be
> difficult to figure out who/what you're replying to.
>
>
>
>
>
23. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
Oooh, a flame war.. let me join in 
It goes without saying that everyone on this list prefers open source.
However I see no reason whatsoever to prohibit closed source or
even /commercial/ entries. That applies not only to programs and
libraries a programmer might find useful, but also applications whose
only relevance is to showcase what can be achieved with Euphoria.
Even if something is free, but there is no source, so /you/ will not
use it, why do you want to limit /my/ options?
Regards,
Pete
24. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
Can I join in too 
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
>
> Oooh, a flame war.. let me join in
>
> It goes without saying that everyone on this list prefers open source.
>
No it doesn't (lol)
Chris
http://members.aol.com/chriscrylex/euphoria.htm
http://uboard.proboards32.com/
25. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Burch" <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
To: <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
>
>
> posted by: Chris Burch <chriscrylex at aol.com>
>
> Can I join in too
>
> Pete Lomax wrote:
> >
> >
> > Oooh, a flame war.. let me join in
> >
> > It goes without saying that everyone on this list prefers open source.
> >
<i><b>Prefers</b></i> open source? Yes. ***Anyone*** would rather have an
open-source program in their hands rather than a closed-source. No duh. I
think what you mean to say is 'It goes without saying that everyone on this
list gets mad at closed-source.'
Thats wrong too. I don't.
In fact, SySlaunch was closed-source for one of its releases.
William Heimbigner
icxcnika at hotpop.com
Visit the UBoard - Forceful Signups Removed! -
http://uboard.proboards32.com - Threaded discussion, improved searching,
human moderating, graphical smileys, better formatting abilities (now what
else was there...)
Visit my website: http://www.geocities.com/icxcnika123
26. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
>
> posted by: Brian Broker <bkb at cnw.com>
>
> I wrote:
> >
> > Of course, I could write code in VB and submit an EXE and it would
probably
> > be accepted to the archives... <shrug>
> >
>
> Now that I've thought about it more, I'd actually like to suggest that
> 'no source' submissions not be allowed to the Eu archives. My feeling
> is that the archives should be a resource for learning. If I submitted
> a program that was described as a replacment for ascii.ex but was a
> 'no source' EXE that actually deleted your HD or was a trojan or virus
> or what-have-you... I mean, does RDS actually review every submission?
>
> If you want to secure your source then it should be held on your own site
> with your own terms. Maybe a place like download.com or tucows.com would
> suit your needs if you don't like to share.
>
> Does anybody else see my point here or is it just me? Of course, I'm not
> going to run anything I can't edit (or trust) so I guess I don't have to
> worry but since we are on the topic of 'newbies' and such...
>
> -- Brian
> (just trying to look out for those less-inclined to protect themselves)
>
> PS: This is not intended to be a personal attack on Joe or his VE. This
> is only a suggestion that I hope will be backed by the community.
>
For what it's worth, I agree that there should be no "no source"
"contributions", because, just as the many people on this forum can answer
each others questions, so can the many people here check SOURCE code for
intentional or unintentional bad things, rather than ASSUMING that Rob will
go over every contribution with a fine tooth comb; in addition, hardly
anyone can LEARN from "no source", but many can learn from a contribution
that is in SOURCE.
And I haven't yet seen (may have missed it) WHY such a useful program has to
be non-source.
$.02
Dan Moyer
27. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
In a way, I can understand why a programmer wouldn't want to release
source code... I heard one sneer that people who did that didn't want
anyone to see their crappy code. But I think there's another reason
why this happens:
A Euphoria programmer gets enough experience & knowledge to write a
decent utility (let's say up on Judith's or even Rob's level) & uploads
it to the archive. Now a newbie come along with just enough know-how to
do some editing, maybe write a demo, & thinks maybe he can jump ahead &
increase his knowledge by editing a program. Maybe he feels he's learned
enough with the DOS apps, & wants to try a Windows utility. So he gets
something from the archive, hacks into it, & uploads it again. The
original author sees the new version & checks it out:
"HE/SHE DID WHAT!?!?!?
Now with the coffee out the nose...
Maybe they're trying to nip it in the bud (LOL).
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
>
> Oooh, a flame war.. let me join in
>
> It goes without saying that everyone on this list prefers open source.
>
> However I see no reason whatsoever to prohibit closed source or
> even /commercial/ entries. That applies not only to programs and
> libraries a programmer might find useful, but also applications whose
> only relevance is to showcase what can be achieved with Euphoria.
>
> Even if something is free, but there is no source, so /you/ will not
> use it, why do you want to limit /my/ options?
>
> Regards,
> Pete
>
>
28. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:11:20 -0700, david <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> posted by: david <studmeow at hotmail.com>
> In a way, I can understand why a programmer wouldn't want to release
> source code... I heard one sneer that people who did that didn't want
> anyone to see their crappy code. But I think there's another reason
> why this happens:
> A Euphoria programmer gets enough experience & knowledge to write a
> decent utility (let's say up on Judith's or even Rob's level) & uploads
> it to the archive. Now a newbie come along with just enough know-how to
> do some editing, maybe write a demo, & thinks maybe he can jump ahead &
> increase his knowledge by editing a program. Maybe he feels he's learned
> enough with the DOS apps, & wants to try a Windows utility. So he gets
> something from the archive, hacks into it, & uploads it again. The
> original author sees the new version & checks it out:
> "HE/SHE DID WHAT!?!?!?
I think that was mentioned before...
Thing with that is though...
1. How long have the archives been around for? How many times has that
happened?
2. Rob has full control over the submissions archive. If this should
happen, it could be quickly removed.
3. The submissions archive is the central sharing point of Euphoria
programs. (see 2.)
4. Anyone to do this, newbie or not, would be villified by the
Euphoria community.
I think Visual Euphoria could be a very valuable tool...
Noone disputes ownership of your codebase. In fact, if you look at the
largest projects in Euphoria at the moment, they are usually referred
to as "Judith's IDE", "Derek Parnell's win32lib", "Pete's M Editor",
etc... even though many people have contributed to those projects. As
long as the source is open, and you incorporate peoples bug-fixes into
the release semi-regularly, there will be no question of ownership,
and the project will be far better than if it was closed source...
Many eyes make all bugs easy to find.
--
MrTrick
29. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
you make a good point Mr.Trick , i was originally planning on
releasing open source
for Visual Euphoria as soon as i have finished all my personal
vandettas against the code in my application. Meaning i want it to be
at a certain point before i open
it's guts up to the euphoira community, this will probably be in the
next release in a week from now.
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:31:53 +1000, Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:11:20 -0700, david <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> > posted by: david <studmeow at hotmail.com>
> > In a way, I can understand why a programmer wouldn't want to release
> > source code... I heard one sneer that people who did that didn't want
> > anyone to see their crappy code. But I think there's another reason
> > why this happens:
> > A Euphoria programmer gets enough experience & knowledge to write a
> > decent utility (let's say up on Judith's or even Rob's level) & uploads
> > it to the archive. Now a newbie come along with just enough know-how to
> > do some editing, maybe write a demo, & thinks maybe he can jump ahead &
> > increase his knowledge by editing a program. Maybe he feels he's learned
> > enough with the DOS apps, & wants to try a Windows utility. So he gets
> > something from the archive, hacks into it, & uploads it again. The
> > original author sees the new version & checks it out:
> > "HE/SHE DID WHAT!?!?!?
>
> I think that was mentioned before...
>
> Thing with that is though...
> 1. How long have the archives been around for? How many times has that
> happened?
> 2. Rob has full control over the submissions archive. If this should
> happen, it could be quickly removed.
> 3. The submissions archive is the central sharing point of Euphoria
> programs. (see 2.)
> 4. Anyone to do this, newbie or not, would be villified by the
> Euphoria community.
>
> I think Visual Euphoria could be a very valuable tool...
> Noone disputes ownership of your codebase. In fact, if you look at the
> largest projects in Euphoria at the moment, they are usually referred
> to as "Judith's IDE", "Derek Parnell's win32lib", "Pete's M Editor",
> etc... even though many people have contributed to those projects. As
> long as the source is open, and you incorporate peoples bug-fixes into
> the release semi-regularly, there will be no question of ownership,
> and the project will be far better than if it was closed source...
>
> Many eyes make all bugs easy to find.
> --
> MrTrick
>
>
>
>
>
30. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
this will also give me time to make the code more modular so that
people's requests and my own can be added easily, the purpose of VE
all along was to
benefit any euphorian coder.
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:39:11 +1000, spent memory
<spent.memory at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> you make a good point Mr.Trick , i was originally planning on
> releasing open source
> for Visual Euphoria as soon as i have finished all my personal
> vandettas against the code in my application. Meaning i want it to be
> at a certain point before i open
> it's guts up to the euphoira community, this will probably be in the
> next release in a week from now.
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:31:53 +1000, Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:11:20 -0700, david <guest at rapideuphoria.com>
> > wrote:
> > > posted by: david <studmeow at hotmail.com>
> > > In a way, I can understand why a programmer wouldn't want to release
> > > source code... I heard one sneer that people who did that didn't want
> > > anyone to see their crappy code. But I think there's another reason
> > > why this happens:
> > > A Euphoria programmer gets enough experience & knowledge to write a
> > > decent utility (let's say up on Judith's or even Rob's level) & uploads
> > > it to the archive. Now a newbie come along with just enough know-how to
> > > do some editing, maybe write a demo, & thinks maybe he can jump ahead &
> > > increase his knowledge by editing a program. Maybe he feels he's learned
> > > enough with the DOS apps, & wants to try a Windows utility. So he gets
> > > something from the archive, hacks into it, & uploads it again. The
> > > original author sees the new version & checks it out:
> > > "HE/SHE DID WHAT!?!?!?
> >
> > I think that was mentioned before...
> >
> > Thing with that is though...
> > 1. How long have the archives been around for? How many times has that
> > happened?
> > 2. Rob has full control over the submissions archive. If this should
> > happen, it could be quickly removed.
> > 3. The submissions archive is the central sharing point of Euphoria
> > programs. (see 2.)
> > 4. Anyone to do this, newbie or not, would be villified by the
> > Euphoria community.
> >
> > I think Visual Euphoria could be a very valuable tool...
> > Noone disputes ownership of your codebase. In fact, if you look at the
> > largest projects in Euphoria at the moment, they are usually referred
> > to as "Judith's IDE", "Derek Parnell's win32lib", "Pete's M Editor",
> > etc... even though many people have contributed to those projects. As
> > long as the source is open, and you incorporate peoples bug-fixes into
> > the release semi-regularly, there will be no question of ownership,
> > and the project will be far better than if it was closed source...
> >
> > Many eyes make all bugs easy to find.
> > --
> > MrTrick
> >
> >
>
>
>
31. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:39:11 +1000, spent memory <spent.memory at gmail.com>
wrote:
> releasing open source
> for Visual Euphoria as soon as i have finished all my personal
> vandettas against the code in my application. Meaning i want it to be
> at a certain point before i open
> it's guts up to the euphoira community, this will probably be in the
> next release in a week from now.
Wonderful!
Speaking from past experience...
I had a very very cool game I was working on that used my physics
engine... it had a lot of nice artwork in it too, and was very fun to
play.
I was "just finishing it off", before I submitted it to the
archives... and my hard drive crashed nastily... no more game.
So please, make sure you have backups!
--
MrTrick
32. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
I probably would never code again if i lost 1 of my game engines like
that. Yeah i learnt backups the hard way too. Now i usually have like
2 backups at least of big projects.
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:27:51 +1000, Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:39:11 +1000, spent memory <spent.memory at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > releasing open source
> > for Visual Euphoria as soon as i have finished all my personal
> > vandettas against the code in my application. Meaning i want it to be
> > at a certain point before i open
> > it's guts up to the euphoira community, this will probably be in the
> > next release in a week from now.
>
> Wonderful!
>
> Speaking from past experience...
> I had a very very cool game I was working on that used my physics
> engine... it had a lot of nice artwork in it too, and was very fun to
> play.
> I was "just finishing it off", before I submitted it to the
> archives... and my hard drive crashed nastily... no more game.
>
> So please, make sure you have backups!
>
>
> --
> MrTrick
>
>
>
>
33. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:31:53 +1000, Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com>
wrote:
>"Judith's IDE", "Derek Parnell's win32lib", "Pete's M Editor",
LOL. All three of those have changed ownership.
Not without the original author's permission, but still.
Pete
34. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:15:55 +0100
> From: Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
>
>
> Oooh, a flame war.. let me join in
>
> It goes without saying that everyone on this list prefers open source.
>
> However I see no reason whatsoever to prohibit closed source or
> even /commercial/ entries. That applies not only to programs and
> libraries a programmer might find useful, but also applications whose
> only relevance is to showcase what can be achieved with Euphoria.
>
I'm afraid I thoroughly disagree with you on this.
I see no reason whatsoever to allow or promote closed source. If a project is
easy to clone, there's no relevance in selling it under any form, and that
very act should be outlawed probably. If it's sophisticated enough, there
won't be any serious cloning at all.
Regulations on intellectual property equally apply to open or closed source,
so that binding cannot take any commercial argument as an excuse. Things that
are worthy of being sold don't get pirated, only overpriced software is. Or
software with unduly harsh licensing terms.
> Even if something is free, but there is no source, so /you/ will not
> use it, why do you want to limit /my/ options?
>
If something is closed, you have to rely on the author for updating,
enhancing, fixing bugs etc. The author may not be there any longer/in a mood
to/have time for/etc maintain its own stuff for long. That's exactly what
ex(.)*.exe has been suffering from.
Bound code has no benefits by itself, as it limits the user's possibilities
and imparts much higher maintainance costs to whoever cares to maintain the
code. And it may raise the security concerns that were voiced here earlier. In
a nutshell, it's a lose/lose thing.
This does not mean canned or somehow (pre)compiled pieces of code, like
..dll/.so files, are not useful. They are, but please give me any reason why
the source should not be available on request, charges covering handling costs?
The only one I cab see is some lingering habits from the past, where compiled
code was definitely faster than anything interpreted. Mildly true 10 years
ago, just untrue now.
Joe, please don't misread me:
I didn't take time to test VE yet. It may or may not be dangerous, it may or
it may not be a great app: I have no opinion on either count. Binding is a
slap in the face of programmers at large, that's all. Another Eu misfeature...
Regards
CChris
> Regards,
> Pete
>
35. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
Christian Cuvier wrote:
> I see no reason whatsoever to allow or promote closed source. If a project is
> easy to clone, there's no relevance in selling it under any form, and that
> very act should be outlawed probably. If it's sophisticated enough, there
> won't be any serious cloning at all.
>
> Regulations on intellectual property equally apply to open or closed source,
> so that binding cannot take any commercial argument as an excuse. Things that
> are worthy of being sold don't get pirated, only overpriced software is. Or
> software with unduly harsh licensing terms.
I don't think that by posting closed source software on the Euphoria
website indicates a promotion of that software.
I do not like closed source software, mostly for all the same reasons
already posted, but as a professional for 20+ years I also must accept
that many programmers still today consider closed software a security
blanket much like Linus in Peanuts. Closed source software IS a legal
perogative. And I wouldn't totally discount the security afforded by
closed source software. Yes, the software can be cloned, but that's a
lot of work. The same as a lock is no security against a professional
thief, so closed source is no security against a dedicated hacker, but
does that then invalidate my decision to lock up? No, I lock up my
house to remove the temptation for the casual passerby to go through my
things and possibly steal. I may even have an alarm system to stop the
bungling thief, but I still do not trust my alarm system to stop all
thieves. And so, I as a programmer may want to protect my intelectual
property because I don't trust the law to be a strong enough deterent.
Do I expect my software to never be hacked/cloned or otherwise violated?
No, but I know that at least I have not made it easy.
My argument on protected sources has always been to allow programmers
what they want. If their measures to protect their sources goes beyond
the sensibilities of the market, then they will feel it in the pocket,
or in the fact that no-one uses their software. Just look at all the
crap software vendors have done through the years for copy protection.
How many softwares do you see today protected beyond the annoying
registration code that any 5 year old can write down and distribute?
Remember, I support open source, I release all my stuff as open source,
but that doesn't give me the right to denegrate those who choose to
hold onto their sources.
> Binding is a
> slap in the face of programmers at large, that's all. Another Eu misfeature...
I disagree. Not just because what I wrote above, but because binding
provides features that I want even though I distribute source. Granted,
I have only been messing with Euphoria for a couple of weeks and have not
yet purchased it to be able to bind it, but I will if I have something
worth distributing. Your assumptions are only based on distribution to
the programming community, and so your arguments may be true for the
Euphoria website, but to call binding an Eu misfeature is to miss the
world-at-large. If I bind my program, there is now only a handful of
files I have to distribute, so it is much easier to distribute. If I
bind my program, I know that someone can not accidentally open one of my
files in notepad and break the app and then come wining to me that the
app is broken. I may also choose to bind so that a part of the bound app
is not distributed as open source. This could be for a variety of reasons,
I may be protecting the intelectual rights of another programmer who
granted me permission to use his routines, but not the right to distro
his source. I may have put in a file in the bound app that is not available
in source so that I can tell if a bound app was bound by me, or by
someone with the source. Beleive it or not, that last saved me in
another programming environment where my customer decided to modify my
program, compile it and then get me to troubleshoot the problems they
created. They even went so far as to alter the date and time on the
compiled code to be the same as what I distro'd. It wasn't until I invoked
an "easter egg" function which proved that the distro was not mine that
the customer had to come clean that they had modified it and therefore I
would get paid to troubleshoot it because the customer no longer had a leg
to stand on that it was a bug in MY code.
Jim
36. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
[Some parts snipped]
> And so, I as a programmer may want to protect my intelectual
> property because I don't trust the law to be a strong enough deterent.
> Do I expect my software to never be hacked/cloned or otherwise violated?
If the modified binary is beneficial, why complain?
If it harms, then the wrongdoings themselves are to cause prosecution and
liability claims against the wrongdoers.
Otherwise who cares?
In a nutshell, there are problems as you state, but closed source generates
problems of its own and does not alleviate what it supposedly helps preventing.
> No, but I know that at least I have not made it easy.
If the software is largely useful, the notion of intellectual property itself
is questionable, because things are produced to be used first; their being
sold is kind of collateral damage.
If it is just that nobody had thought to get a patent on something already
known, then the notion is downright illegitimate.
Otherwise, the whole point of protecting the software appears barely relevant.
>>Binding is a
>>> slap in the face of programmers at large, that's all. Another Eu
>>> misfeature...
>
>
> If I bind my program, there is now only a handful of
> files I have to distribute, so it is much easier to distribute.
Did you hear about self-extracting archives? They solve this handy...
> If I
> bind my program, I know that someone can not accidentally open one of my
> files in notepad and break the app and then come wining to me that the
> app is broken.
Either there's an installer, and it's now common practice for it to repair an
installation. If there's none, reextracting from archive cures it all.
> I may also choose to bind so that a part of the bound app
> is not distributed as open source. This could be for a variety of reasons,
> I may be protecting the intelectual rights of another programmer who
> granted me permission to use his routines, but not the right to distro
> his source.
As often happens, it's just that a questionable practice comes to rescue
another one.
> I may have put in a file in the bound app that is not available
> in source so that I can tell if a bound app was bound by me, or by
> someone with the source. Beleive it or not, that last saved me in
> another programming environment where my customer decided to modify my
> program, compile it and then get me to troubleshoot the problems they
> created.
Wow! A small utility to compare files was not enough? It should, as long as
there is some official release. And a commercial product needs to have a
factual definition to qualify as such. Just compare and see. Checksums, or any
flavor of it, are good protection too, even when exposed, because fooling a
few of them simultaneously is a lot of work.
I'm not against distributing binaries, but not without some access to sources.
There may be NDAs on such accesses for example.
> They even went so far as to alter the date and time on the
> compiled code to be the same as what I distro'd. It wasn't until I invoked
> an "easter egg" function which proved that the distro was not mine that
> the customer had to come clean that they had modified it and therefore I
> would get paid to troubleshoot it because the customer no longer had a leg
> to stand on that it was a bug in MY code.
The problem does exist, but the recipe applied is not a cure for that problem.
See above.
Regards
CChris
37. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
Maybe "Source available" or "Commercial Demo" needs
to be a selection in the upload,
so the contributions and archive pages can filter on these.
Some have uploaded both source and bound files in one zip,
eventually I would like to package my game bound with an
installer so that non-euphorians can play it without having to
search out and install another library...although I'll
probably just offer that version on my Geocities page.
I don't want to prohibit source only contributions,
any more than order people to add comments to every line
and make all variable names clear in meaning.
38. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
Michael Raley wrote:
>
> Maybe "Source available" or "Commercial Demo" needs
> to be a selection in the upload,
> so the contributions and archive pages can filter on these.
>
> Some have uploaded both source and bound files in one zip,
> eventually I would like to package my game bound with an
> installer so that non-euphorians can play it without having to
> search out and install another library...although I'll
> probably just offer that version on my Geocities page.
>
> I don't want to prohibit source only contributions,
> any more than order people to add comments to every line
> and make all variable names clear in meaning.
>
Thank you!
Someone else open minded enough to accept that there are 2 sides to this
coin, pro's and con's to both. Let's not slam people because they do
something we don't like, but rather ask for more information on posting
so I as the user can choose based on my own opinions weather to try
their software or not.
39. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
Christian Cuvier wrote:
> If the modified binary is beneficial, why complain?
> If it harms, then the wrongdoings themselves are to cause prosecution and
> liability claims against the wrongdoers.
> Otherwise who cares?
> In a nutshell, there are problems as you state, but closed source generates
> problems of its own and does not alleviate what it supposedly helps
> preventing.
You seem to want to dismiss any argument about closed source.
Open source is a NEW phenomenum, 20+ years ago when I got my start,
open source was unheard of.
The argument is not weather changes to my program are beneficial, nor if
I should complain, but on my rights. I have the right as a programmer to
protect my source if I want, end of argument. Just because you and I
choose as programmers to open up our source for peer review, peer use,
peer improvement etc. does NOT remove the right for other programmers to
keep their source closed. Those programmers may be less enlightened than
you or I, or more paranoid, but we live in a world full of less
enlightened
people and paranoid people. If I spent all my time trying to stop people
from doing things I deem stupid, I would not get anything done.
>
> > No, but I know that at least I have not made it easy.
>
> If the software is largely useful, the notion of intellectual property itself
> is questionable, because things are produced to be used first; their being
> sold is kind of collateral damage.
Are they? I'm sorry, I'm a professional programmer, I put food on the
table for my wife and 3 kids by selling my software. I don't give a
rip if
my software is useful except that useful software will make me money. Now
if I were professionally doing something other than software development I
would probably still develop software, but then it would be for the fun of
it and I would not produce anything like the amount of software I produce
now. This argument of production for use and sales are collateral fails
to realize motivation. You may be motivated by the "general good", but
that is not the motivation of most workers. Do you think most people
involved in manufacturing would continue to manufacture because it is
useful if they knew they couldn't make money?
> If it is just that nobody had thought to get a patent on something already
> known, then the notion is downright illegitimate.
> Otherwise, the whole point of protecting the software appears barely relevant.
OK, then maybe I mis-spoke, maybe these programmers are not protecting
intelectual property so much as they are protecting their investment in
the time to develop thier piece of software. There may not be any new
ideas in their software, but they took the time to produce it.
If I work for a year developing a piece of software, start selling it,
then
see someone come out with a remarkably close product with a few changes
but is underselling me, I am obviously going to be upset if I find out
it's because he stole my code. Yeah I can persue legal avenues, but
that's
a long drawn out and costly process without any promise of repairations.
>
> >>Binding is a
> >>> slap in the face of programmers at large, that's all. Another Eu
> >>> misfeature...
> >
> >
> > If I bind my program, there is now only a handful of
> > files I have to distribute, so it is much easier to distribute.
>
> Did you hear about self-extracting archives? They solve this handy...
Yes, but so does binding...
> > If I
> > bind my program, I know that someone can not accidentally open one of my
> > files in notepad and break the app and then come wining to me that the
> > app is broken.
>
> Either there's an installer, and it's now common practice for it to repair an
> installation. If there's none, reextracting from archive cures it all.
Yeah, but if it's bound, I don't have to think about a repair process.
> > I may also choose to bind so that a part of the bound app
> > is not distributed as open source. This could be for a variety of reasons,
> > I may be protecting the intelectual rights of another programmer who
> > granted me permission to use his routines, but not the right to distro
> > his source.
>
> As often happens, it's just that a questionable practice comes to rescue
> another one.
Your opinion only, not mine. I CHOOSE TO HONOR the right of other
programmers to license their software however way they want. If I don't
like the license I don't have to use their software. In 20+ years of
programming though I have chosen to use others software under restrictive
licenses because I want to get my job done and not have to re-invent
their piece of the pie. You call it questionable practice, I call it
programmers all trying to make a living...
> > I may have put in a file in the bound app that is not available
> > in source so that I can tell if a bound app was bound by me, or by
> > someone with the source. Beleive it or not, that last saved me in
> > another programming environment where my customer decided to modify my
> > program, compile it and then get me to troubleshoot the problems they
> > created.
>
> Wow! A small utility to compare files was not enough? It should, as long as
> there is some official release. And a commercial product needs to have a
> factual definition to qualify as such. Just compare and see. Checksums, or any
>
> flavor of it, are good protection too, even when exposed, because fooling a
> few of them simultaneously is a lot of work.
> I'm not against distributing binaries, but not without some access to sources.
>
> There may be NDAs on such accesses for example.
Your definition of commercial seems to be shrink wrap only. I have
produced only custom "for hire" software which is commercial in that I
make money writing it. I provide the source either because that is part
of our agreement, or because I want to protect my customers so if I
drop off the face of the planet, they are not left holding the bag. Yes
a compare utility or checksum utility etc. would have done the same thing,
but are you so blinded by your dislike for binding software that you won't
accept inovation?
You say your not against distributing binaries, yet you slam the very
feature of the language that would give me the ability to distribute
binaries. I WANT the flexibility that binding gives me, even though I
distribute source.
>
> > They even went so far as to alter the date and time on the
> > compiled code to be the same as what I distro'd. It wasn't until I invoked
> > an "easter egg" function which proved that the distro was not mine that
> > the customer had to come clean that they had modified it and therefore I
> > would get paid to troubleshoot it because the customer no longer had a leg
> > to stand on that it was a bug in MY code.
>
> The problem does exist, but the recipe applied is not a cure for that problem.
>
> See above.
OK, your opinion is the recipe I applied to this problem is not a cure
for the problem. It sure cured the problem for me, I got paid to fix the
problems the customer introduced to my application. Seemed to have cured
the problem for me.
Jim
40. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
Christian Cuvier wrote:
> I see no reason whatsoever to allow or promote closed source. If a project is
> easy to clone, there's no relevance in selling it under any form, and that
> very act should be outlawed probably. If it's sophisticated enough, there
> won't be any serious cloning at all.
There is one very good reason for binding code, which I have had
to do in the past.
I had a client who contracted for a very nice, large program. This
particular client was, relatively speaking, computer savvy (he could
install programs, set up paths, etc) without help. My fear was that
he was just savvy enough to be inclined to "fix" things the thought
could be made better. And that 'fixing" would break something else.
If he ever asks for the source, he is welcome to it, but he and his
staff are probably better off having an unreadable program which works :)
Irv
41. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
- Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk>
Sep 24, 2004
-
Last edited Sep 25, 2004
On 24 Sep 2004 12:37:21 +0200, Christian Cuvier
<Christian.CUVIER at agriculture.gouv.fr> wrote:
>I'm afraid I thoroughly disagree with you on this.
We agree to differ then.
>
>I see no reason whatsoever to allow or promote closed source.
That is unfair to use both in the same sentence.
-->I see no reason whatsoever to promote closed source.
Is a VERY different argument to
-->I see no reason whatsoever to allow closed source.
BECAUSE the latter is effectively the same as
-->I have good reason to disallow closed source.
Such reaons, of course, apart from regurgitations of the benefits of
open source, simply do not exist.
>If a project is
>easy to clone, there's no relevance in selling it under any form, and that
>very act should be outlawed probably. If it's sophisticated enough, there
>won't be any serious cloning at all.
This is not about the morality of capitalism. It is about pure choice.
>
>Regulations on intellectual property equally apply to open or closed source,
>so that binding cannot take any commercial argument as an excuse. Things that
>are worthy of being sold don't get pirated, only overpriced software is. Or
>software with unduly harsh licensing terms.
So? What the heck has all that mush got to do with anything? I am not
asking you whether you *prefer* open source. I am not asking you to
further promote open source. I am not asking you to judge the value of
any submission, open source, closed source, generalised or not.
I am asking you not to restrict my choice.
<SNIP>
>Bound code has no benefits
FALSE! (your caveats were only pro-open source ones)
>please give me any reason why the source should not be available
Derek provided a list which I think caught most.
I can't remember if he explicitly covered the "I will make it open
source, but I'm so interested I want to do it myself/am on such a roll
that comments from anyone else looking at my code will just distract
me and slow the whole thing down".
BTW, Print Preview is a contractual thing. The source (ish, not just
Euphoria) is not strictly owned by me, in my eyes at least. While it
is true that I would almost certainly never be caught, and that I am
undeniably permitted to re-use it for personal gain, just simply
giving it away, when someone else paid for (part of) it, is not on.
Especially if my previous customers' competitors get to use it free,
thus gaining an unfair advantage.
If you cannot understand that, I cannot explain it to you.
Frankly, God himself might struggle.
Pete
42. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
I definatly don't think that this should be done.
There are some programs that there would
be a risk of people finding ways to crack the
software. For example, if micro$oft released
the source code to win-blows it could cause
absolute chaos as people find ways to crack
it. When I eventually submit CJBN (an advanced
network library) it will have no source, since
I already know a way someone could crash every
computer using it. The only way to do this
would be to know the source code. It will
be fixed eventually, but it would require
much work, and Id like to have the rest
of it tested before fixing this.
43. Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
I think that if your contribution suits a specific purpouse other than just
demontarating how to do something eg; creates an Euphoria compatable map
for a game engine or converts a 24-bit bitmap to an 8-bit Euphoria
represented bitmap then there is no real reason to view the source.
If the contribution is posted to demonstrate an Euphoria codes specific
ability or method, then of the sorce code will be viewable of coarse.
It is necassery for Euphoria coders to promote closed sorce projects
aswell as open source projects. A user might want something that suit's a
perticular purpouse. In such cases the end user is not really interested
viewing the sorce but interested in useing the sorce.
