RE: Euphoria will be Free and Open Source!
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."
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
