OpenEuphoria

Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)

• Posted by Juergen Luethje <j.lue at gmx.de> Sep 23, 2006
• 551 views

Al Getz wrote:

> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
>> Ray Smith wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Hi Al,
>>>
>>> One of the main points you are missing is that many Open Source Licesnes
>>> ensure
>>> that all derived works stay open source.
>>> This means that all work done "in the euphoria system" will stay open
>>> forever.
>>> What happens if some bright spark makes a dozen really great changes to
>>> Euphoria
>>> and gets lots of people using it ... but doesn't open source his code.
>>> All of a sudden we are back to where we are now .. with 1 person controlling
>>> everything. (Obviously not quiet since anyone else is able to make the same
>>> improvements)
>>> Licenses such as the LGPL force all derived works to be open source ...
>>> meaning
>>> the open future of Euphoria is ensured
>>
>> I consider this point important.
>>
>>> ... while allowing anyone to write open or closed sourced apps "using"
>>> Euphoria.
>>
>> I consider this point important, too.
>>
>>> I'm all for putting a license on Euphoria which forces it to be open
>>> forever.
>>>
>>> I don't see why people are worried about not allowing the actual Euphoria
>>> source
>>> code to be used in closed source apps.
>>> You can still use all of Euphoria to write as many apps as you want, sell
>>> them
>>> open or closed source to whoever you want to.
>>> You just can't change Euphoria itself and sell it to someone without giving
>>> them your source code.
>>
>> I absolutely agree with you, Ray. Although I don't know the details of
>> all those licenses that have been mentioned here recently, I think the
>> two points above are exactly the bottom line.
>>
>> Maybe we can think of an open programming language somehow like a
>> collection of mathematical formulas or so. It's important that it's
>> known in public. Scientists normally also publish their findings, and
>> this contributes to progress of education and knowledge in the world.
>> It's important, that Pythagoras' theorem and many other stuff is "Open
>> Source". Nevertheless, people can use this knowledge to create a product
>> and then sell this product. (And other people can use the same knowledge
>> to create another product and then give their product away for free, if
>> they like ...)
>>
>> Regards,
>>    Juergen
> 
> 
> Hi there Juergen,
> 
> I dont think it's quite the same, because most scientists are funded
> by some grant, whereas most contributors are doing everything on
> their own time.

Rob has already decided to make Euphoria free and Open Source. And
that's only his decision anyway. And of course -- as people have
mentioned here repeatedly -- what Rob does is a huge donation to the
public.
I still will like to give money to RDS (or the Open Euphoria development
team) either way, and others have written that, too. And maybe e.g. a
univerity will become interested in supporting further development of
Open Euphoria. There are several possibilities ...
In my previous post, I didn't write about financial aspects at all, but
we were talking about the license. Of course, the license should allow
e.g. Euphoria to be further developed at a university.

> Also, not all formulas are made public domain,

I did not say that all formulas are made public domain. Argueing against
something that I never wrote doesn't make too much sense.

I was trying to say, that making certain knowledge available in public
is an important contribution to progress in the world. I deliberately
chose Pythagoras' theorem as example. I could have mentioned dozens of
other mathematical theorems, but you can look in a math textbook
yourself, if you want.

> and certainly not
> all chemical formulas.  In fact, with some formulas it's very
> important that they are not known in public.

Hm?? What has this got to do with my previous post, and with the license
of Open Euphoria? And are you trying to say, that making Euphoria Open
Source would be dangerous, or what?

Regards,
   Juergen