Re: Open Source (was Vincent, please read.)
D. Newhall,
> What are you talking about? Many big name companies do this all the time. Sun,
> Red Hat, IBM, MySQL, AT&T, Cycorp, Novell, etc. The purpose of open source
> is for the source to be available for others to use it has no bearing on
> money.
> Also, the statement "Euphoria is open source" is ambiguous. Yes, the full RDS
> interpreter is not open source, however, their Euphoria interpreter in
> Euphoria
> is.
You have taken what I written out of context. A DEVELOPER SHOULD NOT RELEASE
THEIR PRODUCT AS OPEN SOURCE IF THEY STILL "EXPECT TO CONTINUE TO MAKE MONEY
OFF OF THE ASSET". If you read the previous post by Vincent, he stated:
"In that moment he could of basically thrown away his buisness too.
Open-source is not the way to go if someone wishes to make money off their
products."
I would suggest you reading back a few posts.
And how can you compare mega corporations to RDS? They can afford to release
certain assets as open source, Robert cannot.
My point from the beginning was releasing the PD version of EU has done
little to nothing for the language, and in my opinion Robert putting
restrictions on the RDS version defeats the purpose of releasing EU as open
source to begin with.
----If you continue to do what you have always done,
you will get what you have always gotten.----
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
