Re: Open Euphoria Licence
Al Getz wrote:
>
> Robert Craig wrote:
> >
> > No, I haven't decided on a license yet,
> > but thanks for all the posts. I'm learning
> > a lot. The work on preparing the open source
> > release is going pretty well. It might be
> > ready in a week or so.
> >
> > 1. Regarding a closed-source (possibly for profit)
> > person or group taking advantage of Public Domain source.
> >
> > The group could either grab pieces of the source
> > for some purpose, or grab the whole thing and make a competitor
> > to open source mainstream Euphoria.
> >
> > There aren't that many pieces that would be of much
> > general value once isolated/extracated from the rest
> > of the source. Maybe there are a few run-time library routines
> > that would have some small value by themselves.
> > More likely, someone would grab the whole source
> > and then add a few proprietary closed-source
> > features to it. They would then try to attract
> > Euphoria users over to their "improved", partially closed-source,
> > but compatible version of Euphoria. I believe they
> > would have a lot of trouble attracting more than
> > a handful of people. Most users would want to
> > stick with the mainstream fully open source version, supported by
> > RDS and many others. Users would be suspicious of
> > the partially closed source nature of the new version
> > of Euphoria. Will the closed-source code
> > disappear and be unsupported when the developers get bored?
> > Who wants to risk many long hours
> > developing a program that only runs on an obscure variant of a
> > programming language? If users were also required to pay anything
> > for the new version, that would pretty much kill the new version
> > right there. They could only be asked to pay for the value of the
> > closed-source feature itself, since all the other functionality
> > would be free to them if they stayed with the mainstream Euphoria.
> >
> > In time, open source developers would probably make their
> > own version of any successful, profit making feature. Meanwhile,
> > for a period of time, some Euphoria users might gain some
> > benefit from the closed-source version, and be glad that they
> > took the time to learn Euphoria. Is that so bad?
> >
> > So I think the threat from closed-source and/or for-profit
> > forks of Euphoria is pretty small. The bigger threat is from
> > multiple open-source forks, splitting the community into
> > small pieces.
> >
> > 2. There's one special reason I can think of for allowing
> > partially closed-source versions of Euphoria. It's
> > the binding/shrouding encryption feature. Now that I'm
> > taking it out, it would be useful to some people to
> > insert a bit of closed-source code in the IL writer (binder)
> > and IL reader (backend.exe) that will encrypt their IL
> > using their own encryption algorithm. Both routines are
> > written in Euphoria, so it's easy to modify them. This is actually
> > better than the old system where everybody depended on the
> > same algorithm never being broken. Since everyone used that algorithm,
> > there was a high value to breaking it. Now everyone (who cares) could
> > have his own algorithm. It's a safer system.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rob Craig
> > Rapid Deployment Software
> > <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
>
> Hello Rob,
>
> Really i couldnt have said it better myself 
> I'd just like to add one small but significant point...
>
> With everyone working on the 'public' version
> i think it will be very unlikely that any private version could
> become 'better' than the public one, meaning everyone everywhere
> will most likely want the public version anyway.
>
> On another topic..
> My only concern is what happens to the public version once person
> 'A' inserts bugs 1,2,3, and 4 and person 'B' doesnt like that idea,
> even though there is the appearance of more functionality.
> I've seen a trend where people like to stick stuff in their
> programs in order to increase apparent functionality only to
> also insert bugs because they were in too much of a hurry to
> get it in there. I'd like to see the 'public' version be as
> bug free as the past versions released were...no rushing to get
> features in there. If this cant happen i'll be forced to keep
> my own version as will others im sure.
>
>
> Al
>
> E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria!
>
>
> My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's"
>
If there is someone to keep track of the official release, like Linus does with
the Linux Kernel
there shouldn't be much of a problem. Basically all patches to the official
release could be scrutinized
, not heavily, so that it doesn't make it in if it is going to break anything.
Now this will still allow for the unofficial branches to maintain themselves
while keeping the official
release as clean as possible.
Rob, have you looked into the GPL v3? I'm sure it's probably been mentioned to
you already but I'll re-mention it.
In my opinion you shouldn't release Eu as PD, as that can strip you of the
copyright. You want to hold on to the
copyright. The GPL will allow this and still allow you to make money from Eu
while still allowing everyone else
to do as they please with the code ie. branch off to new versions.
Now the thing about the Community fragmenting is likely, but (and I know I
haven't been around much) we have a
pretty tight-nit group of "Eusers" in this community, unlike other languages. I
think most will want to stay
with the official release for production work and play with the other branches
in their spare time, that's how
I myself will be. Your decision to Open the source actually to be truthful kinda
shocked me, as I was saving
my money and looking forward to buying the upgrade. That's not to say I disagree
with your decision though.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
