Re: Euphoria License
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.
>
> Here is a reference.
>
> <a
> href="http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/11/18/licenses.html">http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/11/18/licenses.html</a>
Seems fair to me.
> 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 ?
They will change it for their own benefit.
If I wanted something so bad (e.g. Kat's goto statement), I'll add it,
and if anyone else wants to use they can.
> 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.
Most developers don't have "unique" problems they are trying to solve.
Almost certainly someone else somewhere have had / or will have a similiar
problem.
> The only free improvements will come from students and uinversities
> if they find Euphoria of any interest.
This is rubbish.
Have a look at Python (for instance), dozens of people contribute to it who
are not students or from uni's.
You may just find people will modify Euphoria to help themselves.
As it just happens, it will probably help others as well.
> 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.
It only takes a few people to improve it.
If Euphoria was open source years ago do you think David Cuny would have left
and made his own language?
More recently, do you think Derek Parnell would of left?
Just imagine if these 2 people started improving Euphoria?
The thought is mind boogling. Euphoria would be so much more advanced!!!
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
