I know you didn't mention open source, but once the code gets out it is to some extent out of RS control. And RS is hardly a microsoft that can afford to go around litigating all day.
I could almost be persuaded to sign up on the idea of limited sourcing of the framework, but beyond that is unlikely. A better approach would be to let us customise the IDE via an API. Bugs in the frameworks do cause problems in our apps so arguably we have a strong interest in that side due to our own support issues. Personally none of the bugs in the IDE have been critical to my work since 2004 ( even though im staying away from the latest release thanks to one of them ) On 6/1/07 10:39, "Andy Dent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
