Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
In a way, I can understand why a programmer wouldn't want to release
source code... I heard one sneer that people who did that didn't want
anyone to see their crappy code. But I think there's another reason
why this happens:
A Euphoria programmer gets enough experience & knowledge to write a
decent utility (let's say up on Judith's or even Rob's level) & uploads
it to the archive. Now a newbie come along with just enough know-how to
do some editing, maybe write a demo, & thinks maybe he can jump ahead &
increase his knowledge by editing a program. Maybe he feels he's learned
enough with the DOS apps, & wants to try a Windows utility. So he gets
something from the archive, hacks into it, & uploads it again. The
original author sees the new version & checks it out:
"HE/SHE DID WHAT!?!?!?
Now with the coffee out the nose...
Maybe they're trying to nip it in the bud (LOL).
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
>
> Oooh, a flame war.. let me join in 
>
> It goes without saying that everyone on this list prefers open source.
>
> However I see no reason whatsoever to prohibit closed source or
> even /commercial/ entries. That applies not only to programs and
> libraries a programmer might find useful, but also applications whose
> only relevance is to showcase what can be achieved with Euphoria.
>
> Even if something is free, but there is no source, so /you/ will not
> use it, why do you want to limit /my/ options?
>
> Regards,
> Pete
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
