Re: Vincent, please read. (was Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !)
Vincent wrote:
>
> Chris I think your confusing yourself:
>
It wouldn't be the first time, but this is not one of those times.
> Official RDS Euphoria is not open-source. The *seperate* 100% Euphoria written
> source code is public-domain. The fast optimized C back-end is proprietary.
> For exchange of $79, RDS will *share* their C back-end but only after you
> consent to a strict license agreement. That isn't open-source, it's privately
> shared proprietary source code.
Yes I know, and that is why I said EU is not truly open source. The PD
back-end is not the same as the RDS C back-end, and because of this users
do little to improve the PD source. I stated in a previous post Robert
could have easily kept everything in C and released that as open source.
>
> Since RDS doesn't charge for the complete download packages, they arn't making
> money off the front-end or PD-source; thus they are not breaking rules
> governing
> the boundaries of the free, public-domain & open-source software movements.
>
Ok you are confused by the point I was making. If Robert wanted EU to be truly
open source eg: public domain, he would not have converted the RDS C version
to a slower EU version. He could have just released the original version as
is.
> RDS did it this way because they wish to stay in full control over the
> official
> language. Euphoria may now be free, but RDS still wants users to use their
> programming
> language, not just the alternative flavors.
I understand you are stating the C back-end is RDS way of keeping control,
and I agree with you, but I also think the C back-end should also be open
source with no limitations. Why even bother with open source if you really
do not want people to create different flavors of EU?
>The main purpose for the PD-source was to give users the ability to make
>their own versions of the language for free, but at a cost of speed in a
>attempt to prevent them from competing directly with RDS.
Ok..you and I agree here, and that is exactly what I was stating before.
> You cannot really consider this uncompetitive behavor though, because
> RDS did *NOT* have to release the PD-source or make Euphoria freeware at all.
> If they feel this current plan could backfire, it's possible RDS will stop
> supporting
> the PD-source, and/or even remove it from future releases.
The sad fact is including or excluding the source code is not going to matter
much.
> It's possible that when they do decide to retire, they'll release Euphoria and
> all their products as public-domain. I will be leaving Euphoria if or when
> that
> happens. I will *NOT* stay to see what becomes of Euphoria in the hands of a
> open-source community!
I do not understand your point, you do not have to use the other version,
just use the original version. You are not the first to make this statement
and I just do not understand the reasoning behind it. If I created a Windows
only EU, with elements dedicated to Windows development, and this is not
something you are interested in, you do not have to use my version.
----If you continue to do what you have always done,
you will get what you have always gotten.----
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
