OpenEuphoria

RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!

• Posted by Al Getz <Xaxo at aol.com> Sep 22, 2006
• 552 views

Pete Lomax wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:55:43 -0700, Robert Craig
> <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
> 
> >I just have to decide on the license (still mulling it over),
> 
> That's as a good an excuse as any to add to this discussion...
> Rob has forced my hand partly to announce this here, before anything 
> appears on the RDS site. I hope this is not taken as being too rude; 
> please follow the link before replying to this message. I had hoped 
> that a bit of healthy competition would improve sales all round, not
> that this is a significant threat or anything.
> 
> Announcement: Alpha release of Positive.
> 
> Positive is a new hybrid compiler/interpreter compatible with RDS 
> Euphoria. There are over 60 working test programs, including all the 
> (gui) demos that came with Arwen and one from win32lib. Positive is 
> windows-only and at the moment significantly slower than Eu, no 
> surprises there.
> 
> Users of Edita will be pleased, nay shocked, to learn that I have seen
> it flicker into life atop Positive, albeit briefly, and after an awful
> long compile phase (~15*2.5). The runtime fares better but still is 
> not quite as fast or as stable as exw.exe, and while usable, obviously
> not recommended for serious work, yet.
> 
> See http:\\www.palacebuilders.co.uk\Positive.htm for more details.
> 
> The licence model is:
>   * Rebuilds of open source front end on full speed back-end 
>      permitted.
>   * The modified compiler sources may be freely re-distributed.
>   * A hardware signature (ie cpuid) is used to prohibit the release of
>      closed-source compilers. However there is no bar to automatically
>      compiling re-distributed sources as part of installation.
>   * The back-end is closed source and implements the encrypted exe 
>      build.
> 
> I personally believe this would be a better route for Rob to take, 
> however it is of course his decision. The vast majority of changes 
> users might wish to make to Eu are in the front-end, not the stable 
> back_end. Positive uses the simple check of "does il contain opBind or
> opInterp?" to trigger the above behaviour (deep inside opBind itself).
> Note that following Rob's announcement, a planned registration 
> mechanism to permit distribution of (non-compiler) executables is now 
> on hold, as is any possible option to sub-licence modified compilers. 
> But it should work locally.
> 
> Having multiple open source compilers will be headache enough; 
> permitting and in fact encouraging multiple closed source compilers is
> a backward step imo, as is abandoning the entire shroud concept.
> 
> One alternative might be to open source the Linux and possibly DOS 
> versions only, which ought to more than halve Rob's testing overheads.
> 
> As others have previously said I would be quite concerned and rather 
> saddened to see Rob lose all financial interest in Euphoria.
> 
> Regards,
> Pete
> PS Rob: if interested, mail me privately for more info about how I've
> used cpuid; as I hope I've made clear I believe I would stand to gain
> by sharing that with you, uncredited. Nothing particularly tricky.
> 
> 

Hi there Pete,

Sounds very interesting.  Are you saying you dont want to go
open source with your interpreter?  Just wondering, what
kind of license do you want for Open Eu ?

Also, couldnt get to your link,,,something wrong maybe?


Take care,
Al

E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria!


My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's"

 From "Black Knight":
"I can live with losing the good fight,
 but i can not live without fighting it".
"Well on second thought, maybe not."