Re: GPL
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:52:55 -0800, Cuny, David at DSS <David.Cuny at
DSS.CA.GOV>
wrote:
>Steve Mosher wrote:
>
>> There was an 'LGPL' developed for libs.
>
>Thanks; I'll look for it.
>
>-- David Cuny
I strongly agree that LGPL or some of it's close kin would serve you
and the Euphoria community well. That, however, triggers a problem that
takes the real power out of the type of openness that I find in this
group. The base that you build on is absolutely closed, cuts across
the GPL and brings into question the validity of the use of the LGPL.
After you have had a chance to read it, you will see what I mean. It is
my personal opinion that RDS is smothering their own creation by the
amount of secrecy built up around Euphoria's base code. Bread upon the
waters...and all that. Not only would the language grow at a much greater
rate, but the integrity and continuity fostered by the Open Source
mode of doing business would bring more users, more confidence, and
more plain old dollars to the Euphoria fold. I'd a lot rather advertise
myself as a premiere practitioner of a widely available secure code
engine than as a dabbler with a code engine that is at the total mercy
of one or two people. Perl, Python, Tcl/Tk, etc. for all their myriad
failings have these things to point to and huge, fanatically devoted
groups of users along with strong commercial use. Linux is not Linus
Torvalds, though his renown is justly deserved. Linux is the combined
effort of literally thousands of developers. Had he fanatically
defended his "genius" work and kept total control of all aspects, how
many of us would know who he is today?
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
