Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> Ray Smith wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > It is a niche product, not a mainstream product where alot of alternatives
> > already exist.
>
> What difference does that make? If a person thinks they could make money in
> a saturated market, what concern is it of yours?
It's not of my concern. Anyone is obviously free to do what they want.
It's much more difficult to sell something in a saturated market where "great"
free alternatives exist.
BUT ... if 2 or 3 people each go and make closed source versions of Euphoria,
each with a different feature set ... how does this help the long term future of
Euphoria?
It will just make it more complicated.
Even if 1 closed source version became the winner ... and everyone started to
use that ... we are back to were we started from with 1 man running the show.
Which worked ... "ok" ... but nowhere near as productive as many of the
currenty open source competitors.
> Here's a question for you Ray, not really related to this reply, but anyway:
> If a product is opensourced under LGPL, or GPL or whatever, the basic premise
> is 'tit for tat' as Linus Torvalds put it.
> How much 'tit' = 'tat'? At what point have I satisfied payment for the source
> to be used at my own discretion?
Difficult question, not a single answer obviously.
Persoanlly, I'd be happy for people to make lots of money with Euphoria.
Making IDE's or debuggers, that "plug in" to the Euphoria interpreter.
And as long as these people always had the long term future of Euphoria in
mind I'm sure everyone would be happy.
But, unless the core is always open and free there will be occasions when
things won't work "well" together, or different versions make it difficult
for someone, of multiple efforts are required to keep "versions in synch" etc.
As long as a way forward exists where everyone works together for the same goal
then I think everyone will be happy :)
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://RaymondSmith.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
