Re: getting hardware data
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) May 23, 2012
- 1497 views
What I was saying is that it is inconsistent
to claim Open Euphoria is an open source project
if it allows closed source, hardware protected
distribution, and it promotes closed source.
We do not promote closed source, hardware protected distribution of Euphoria.
I was not saying you can't do it.
Of course, it can be done (look what happened with M$ and the BSD networking stack, or FreeBSD and Mac OS X), but that doesn't mean it was promoted.
Or are you trying to say that BSD is not open source?
Contributing to an open source project should give
the contributor some say in how that contribution is
used. The contributor should also be recognised for
the contribution made.
Agreed. Anyone who wants to contribute directly to Euphoria can do so under the BSD license. Third-party libraries not meant to be a hard of Euphoria can also be contributed to the Archives under any license the author feels comfortable with.
I'm not sure what the relevance here is to this thread, as the OP asked for some technical advice and euphoric answered. Neither attempted to directly contribute any code resulting out of that discussion into the language.
It is not about money. Free software never had to be
zero cost.
Agreed, and the overall moral argument that I believe you are making makes a lot of sense for FSF-style free software. (As distinguished from the open source software movement, of course.)
