Re: Euphoria open source update?
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> Matt Lewis wrote:
> > Not to rush you or anything, Rob, but....um...how's it coming along? Not
> > that I'm excited or anything...
>
> I should have a release available in less than a week.
> As I get closer to releasing it, I keep finding tiny
> things that need to be adjusted to fit the new
> free and open model. Also, I've decided to call it 3.0.0,
> rather than 3.0 alpha. The "alpha", "beta", "official"
> system of the past doesn't make much sense anymore.
> I expect we'll have more frequent releases (3.0.1, 3.0.2, ...),
> and we won't be aiming at some sort of perfect "official" release.
> The thing will be constantly improving in small increments
> and will have a quicker feedback loop from users regarding bugs etc.
>
> I've created a tentative license. It will be in the download package
> and you can also read it here:
>
> <a
> href="http://www.rapideuphoria.com/License.txt">http://www.rapideuphoria.com/License.txt</a>
>
> If you see any serious problems with it let me know.
> I could still change it. It's a very generous license,
> but I really can't see any closed source group taking
> advantage of us. Also, I want people to be able to
> add their own Binder/shrouder encryption, and keep it closed source.
> I also want a license that encourages people to use Euphoria and
> not get scared away, or turned off, by reading a long
> threatening legal document.
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
I think that it sounds pretty good. I think it could be modified if you ever see
any threat from other sources. I don't think that you are very worried about that
though; you have been releasing the binaries as public domain for a very long
time now.
The only thing I would request is making either the second or third digit denote
whether the version is "testing" or "stable" like Linux does/used to do. That is,
it used to be with Linux that if the second digit was odd then it was a testing
version and if it was even then it was a stable version.
Maybe invert that, since it would be weird to start the 3.0.x series with 3.1.x
instead. Or maybe the third digit could denote testing/stable depending on
whether it was even or odd.
--
"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.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
