Re: Linux Torvalds on GPL2
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 05:11:33 -0700, Matt Lewis
> <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>
> >In a word, confusing. Or at least complex.
>
> Yes it does need significant rewording.
> (it's not really a "licence" as such either, more a statement of
> [hoped-for] behaviour/facts, not sure what else to call it.)
> >The prospect of actual open source Euphoria makes positive less attractive to
> >me.
> <cheesy fake smile>
> Tell me about it, I'm near suicidal over it.
> </cheesy fake smile>
> >The closed-sourceiness of the project is a bit of a turn off.
> I half-hope the simplicity of rebuild might counter that.
> The bizarre thing is it takes a bit of closed source to /force/ the
> open-sourceiness that I want 
.
Maybe once I figure out the [hoped-for] behaviour, you might be
right. :)
> The closed source bit is clearly as turing-complete as the x86
> instruction set; in my (blinkered) view, bugs aside, not really
> any/much different to pd source that uses eg kernel32.dll.
> Feel free to disagree.
I don't disagree, exactly. I guess that the difference is that I'd be
interested in changing some of the closed source, whereas I'm not
interested in changing kernel32.dll--nor any bit of the Linux kernel,
to be fair.
> Fair point. I have to add value and I have to believe I can still do
> so even in the face of this news. I have my work cut out, I know.
Good luck. It's not completely different than my work with OOEU, except
that I plan to use the RDS source, rather than build from scratch,
even though I've thought about doing that several times (and sort of
did using C# and .Net).
> All I can plea is that you don't dismiss it out of hand; try it once
> in a while as new versions arrive - at no cost, of course
I usually do.
> Besides it is better to have a choice not a monopoly, surely.
No arguments here.
> I suppose one last vestige of hope is that Rob releases the source,
> along with instructions on how to install and configure a suitable C
> compiler, but continues to sell a pre-built "stable" binary, perhaps
> more suited to commercial/total newbie use out-of-the-box.
I'm not sure about selling, but definitely offering binaries to be
available. In any case, I suspect that some others might start maintaining
packages for various linux/BSD distros. Maybe someone will come up
with an interactive installer (it's been talked about enough around
here) a-la cygwin.
> I dunno, what would people think about a clause in the licence along
> the lines of:
> "you can give (or sell) a binary to anybody, just don't advertise it
> [on EUforum or any pages directly linked from rapideuphoria.com]
> as a "stable" release."
Weirdly restrictive. I guess you're trying to keep from offending Rob
or something?
> Obviously, old hands mostly already have that "beta" [1] , but a
> steady trickle of new arrivals won't. That "steady trickle" may be
> insignificant now, but might grow. Just another idea.
> [1] and/or recompile the source, or friends they can ask direct
Sorry, you lost me. Which "beta?"
Matt Lewis
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
