On 06/01/2007, at 12:43 PM, Daniel Stenning wrote:
So lets get this straight... You guys want RS to show everybody their
source code for the IDE and framework. Sure you don't want to get
them to
O.S. their compiler as well ? Im sure they'd love our help
debugging that.
Give me a break...
Daniel, I suggest you think about what you have read a little more
before erupting - my message made it clear I was drawing a comparison
to Metrowerks and Microsoft who distribute source code to their
frameworks. In both cases, if you read the license agreements, that
source code is under fairly strict licensing conditions. I doubt very
strongly if there are any trade secrets in the RB frameworks which
would stop them releasing the source code.
I also made it pretty clear that framework source has been important
to me in the past. More explicitly, apart from debugging things and
adding my contributions (some of which were rolled into the official
source) I have also been responsible for fixing framework bugs during
Codewarrior beta tests.
How many of the bugs introduced during the beta cycle would have been
fixed if people had access to the framework source?
I didn't suggest releasing source to the IDE and think that's a bad
idea - too much distraction for the engineers, too hard to deal with
and way too volatile.
The phrase "open source" didn't appear anywhere in my posting nor in
the feature request.
Nor did I say "everybody". I was very explicit in suggesting it be
part of a Developer membership, to make it a select group who would
have the incentive and discipline to not harass the engineers. I also
suggested that it be under an "officially unsupported" arrangement.
regards
Andy
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
