Re: .il code/file questions
Andy Serpa wrote:
> Robert Craig wrote:
>>
>> Pete Lomax wrote:
>>> Am I missing something here?
>>
>> Probably not, though I don't completely understand your point.
>>
>> At this time I feel I've opened things up a lot.
>> I'm giving away 30% of the interpreter source as PD. I'm selling
>> the rest for $79. Wait until 2.5 has been out for
>> a while before trying to get me to consider wonderful new ways
>> of opening things up. I'll be able to make a much better
>> decision when some people actually start to do something with
>> the PD and/or $79 source. Users will also understand better
>> by that time what they can do, and what they want to do.
>> If what they want to do is take full control of the source,
>> add a bunch of "features", run at full speed, and put
>> me out of business, they'll have a long wait.
<snip>
> Take a simple example. In v2.5, the '$' symbol now represents
> length(this sequence). Ok great. So let's say I want to add some
> other stuff like that to cut down on my own typing. So I modify the
> front-end to add some new shorthand. For instance, maybe I'd have:
>
> s &&= x
>
> be equivalent to: s = append(s,x).
>
> And maybe I'd implement assign on declaration, so I do this:
>
> integer x = 4.
>
> Just basic pre-processor type stuff.
>
> Problem is, if I make those modifications, I CAN'T USE THEM! Because
> now I can't translate or bind programs than contain those shorthands.
The latter is right, but that doesn't mean you can't use them at all.
When you change eu.ex, then you have your own modified Euphoria
interpreter. Using the Eu 2.5 translator, you can produce a standalone
eu.exe program from it.
Please don't get me wrong. I understand that you (and probably most of
us) want that their modified front-end is able to produce IL code, that
will be executed by the fast official 'backend.exe'. I just wanted to
point the above out, because I think we should be precise, in order not
to increase the current confusion here. 
> So if I can't even do simple pre-processor type stuff, then attempting
> to add more complex new features (new functions, built-in support for
> external libraries, etc.) is also out of the question.
>
> So again, how would the above threaten you, esp. if I have to buy your
> binder or translator still in order to do the binding or translating?
> Your .il format can remain proprietary, and everybody wins. What's the
> problem?
I believe this could be a problem:
Say you create a fancy Eu front-end, that produces official IL code.
When you buy the binder, than you can make your own Euphoria interpreter,
that is as fast as the official interpreter, but has additional features.
This is threatening RDS, no? *Only you* have to buy the binder, the
users of your interpreter will not have to do so, like currently (and in
the past) no Eu user had to buy the binder.
A solution for RDS IMHO could be to make the license of the binder
similar to the license of the source code product: You are only allowed
to give your modified interpreter to people, who registered the binder.
Does that make sense? I'm not sure whether or not I'm also confused by
all this stuff. 
> You keep talking about people releasing enhanced versions of
> the language itself, but anyone CAN ALREADY DO THAT by buying the
> source from you (and breaking the license, of course).
This would be illegal.
> How is this a new or different threat?
*If* my above considerations apply (what I actually don't know), then
that could be threatening, no?
The existence of illegal threats is no reason for deliberately adding
legal threats.
Regards,
Juergen
--
Have you read a good program lately?
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
