RE: .il code/file questions
Robert Craig wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
>
> Pete Lomax wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:29:46 -0800, Robert Craig
> > <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Probably not, though I don't completely understand your point.
> > The point is the words that you use, not that you necessarily offer
> > anything radically different. Please correct me if I am wrong:
> >
> > The new eu.ex is open source. I can modify it and distribute it as I
> > please (but it's a tad slow).
>
> Yes. In fact it's more than just "open source". For example,
> the popular GNU license forces you to make your changes open.
> This PD source has no restrictions like that. You can make an
> open or closed source and/or commercial program
> and sell it for a million dollars.
>
> > Assuming I don't modify execute.e, then if I purchase the source, it's
> > a simple thing to create a full-featured (bar legacy shrouded code
> > support), full speed interpreter (say myexw.exe).
>
> Yes, for private use, not wide distribution.
> I can imagine some company needing/wanting to make
> a small change to Euphoria. This would allow them
> to do so, possibly saving thousands of dollars of
> effort for $79.
>
> Most (90%?) of the people who previously purchased
> the source product had no intention of widely distributing modified
> versions of Euphoria. Obviously, on this mailing list there
> are several people with the publicly-stated intention,
> and past history, of trying to develop Euphoria-like languages
> regardless of the effect that has on RDS's bottom line.
> ...I know, I know, you all want the best for Euphoria.
> You want to selflessly lead the Euphoria community to
> the "promised land". You don't want to put RDS out of business.
> You just want to clone Euphoria and distribute it free,
> at full speed, with open source, to all comers. 
>
> > I can send myexw.exe to you, and it will or will not appear in the
> > archive at your discretion.
>
> Yes. If it provides some benefit to those who are using *Euphoria*,
> I'll probably post it.
>
> > Now, despite having purchased the source, I'm still at liberty to
> > distribute the PD bits I modified, but not myexw.exe (which is the
> > main change to the 2.5 license)
>
> Yes you can distribute the PD stuff.
>
> > I am allowed to tell people where to buy the source.
> > I can supply instructions for recreating myexw.exe, or, if someone can
> > prove they have purchased the source, I can send them myexw.exe.
> >
> > As I re-read the new source license, it dawns upon me that maybe this
> > is what you meant all along.
> >
> > It all now seems a lot more reasonable to me.
> >
> > You just want your $79 from every person in the chain, and then we can
> > do what we like. Sounds fair play to me.
>
> Yes, you can work with others on the source and you can
> give your version of Euphoria to others, e.g. people
> who have contracted with you to do a special app,
> but everyone must pay $79 for a source license.
>
> > One last thing, before anyone jumps on me. If you create an
> > application as opposed to an interpreter, the end users do not have to
> > pay a fee, though you may have to distribute it bound because of the
> > restriction on redistributing myexw.exe (if, that is, it uses any new
> > language features you have devised)
>
> I don't think that's spelled out explicitly,
> but the license does not say you can distribute
> executables in bound or packaged form without the $79/person rule
> kicking in. Nor does it say you can build/distribute something
> other than an interpreter and avoid the $79 rule.
>
> Of course the rules are completely different if you
> want to port Euphoria to a new platform that it
> doesn't already run on.
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
We don't want the source for the backend, we just want to be able to
hook to it.
Rob I understand the arrangements that you have set up, and I don't
terribly disagree with it. I realize you are trying to protect your own
interests, but it really seems like are trying to pull the wool over our
eyes, with false choice. The point we are making, is that your options,
provide us with no options for what we want to acheive, and it's NOT to
put you out of business. Forcing everyone to buy a source liscense, so
they can use our hybrid front-ends, is futile.
And YES! We do want to distribute Eu to the 4 corners. What is wrong
with that? You don't think there would be positive reprecussion for
Euphoria's income? Or are you really that afraid we are going to one-up
you? If we were going to one-up you, we would publicly broadcast the
registered version products we have.
Consider that last notion, and consider it really hard, and weigh it
against the restrictions you are imposing, and look at how rediculous
you are being. You have 10 padlocks on the front door, and left the back
door WIDE OPEN.
If we wanted to sabotage you, it's alot less effort than any
modifications we can make to your code.
I beleive you are trying to protect more than your financial interests
here, and I don't blame you for wanting to protect your creation from
being tainted.
I know you *would like* to be releived to have got 2.5 out the door, and
we should be more considerate of that fact. I apologize on behalf of all
of us, for creating premature conflict. We should respect that you have
put alot of effort into producing what you have provided, but I'm sure
you can understand everybody's dissapointment.
2.5 is still in alpha, and only days old. We can wait until 2.5
solidifes at least, before we start casting our ballots.
And by all means Rob, use that excuse too. It will calm people down for
the time being, I assure you, so you can have a rest.
However, you really do need to consider this situation more thoroughly.
Can you at least agree to strongly reconsider your position on this?
We can start a formal *productive* thread to discuss any possible
options, to satisfy both, your interests and ours.
And for crying out loud, don't say no, to any of your customers, ever.
Even if that's what you mean.
The customer is always right, even when they are wrong.
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
