OpenEuphoria

Re: Euphoria License

• Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gmail.com> Sep 23, 2006
• 578 views

Bernie Ryan wrote:
> 
> 
> To Anybody:
> 
>  From what I have read, a user can not create their own interpeter
> derive from the source and sell it without disclosing the full
> source.

That's the gist of some of the licenses being discussed here.  It 
basically ensures that all the work can be shared by everyone...or
only by the developer who created it (as you mention below). 

> So why would anyone work hard at modifing the source when there
> is no reward to do the work for. To get your name in the about
> dialog box ?

The reward is also the software itself.  They get to use it, and so do
others.  They probably also use code that other people have written.
Was your only motivation for submissions the MicroEconomy money?

> Most developer's will modify the interpeter for there own internal
> use an add features that are unique to their use. This keeps
> the source improvements in their own pocket books.
> 
> The only free improvements will come from students and uinversities
> if they find Euphoria of any interest.

I can guarantee you that this is false, since I plan to contribute free
improvements.  There is a growing level of corporate participation in 
open source.  Companies like IBM have many sallaried employees whose 
job it is to contribute to various open source projects.  The motivations
aren't always as obvious as selling software under a proprietary license,
but I would think it quite obvious by the volume of open source development
going on that the motivations exist.  

The only question has been how will Rob continue to support himself--
assuming that Euphoria did this for him.  Given his decision, apparently
he doesn't need it, or has found something better...or maybe Junko got a 
good job, and is now supporting Rob in the style to which he has become
accustomed. :) 

> I wonder how many users who are all for having open-source,
> have ever purchased the source code.

I did.

> Most of the user's would not be able to modify the source
> or even understand it. How many users have modified the
> the public domain source that is already available. 

Me.  I agree that the 'many eyes' philosophy is not all that it is often 
claimed to be.  Not everyone has the drive or the ability to read, fix or
enhance a complex piece of software.  However, I think it should be pretty
clear that there are several Euphoria users who fit the bill, and that
there are a lot of other Euphoria users interested in getting the benefits
from the work of those few.

Matt Lewis