Re: Calling all open source developers

[Richmond Mathewson]

All getting a bit heavy round these parts.

This should lighten the load:

http://mehglobal.com/nix/index.html

Absolutely lovely!

Love, Richmond.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Troy Rollins]

On Oct 20, 2009, at 3:14 PM, David Bovill wrote:


At this stage - its just about saying you want in


I'd be interested.

I think what Rev really needs to fully take off is an open source CMS.  
It seems that so many languages have really soared in popularity once  
they had one going.


--
Troy
RPSystems, Ltd.
http://www.rpsystems.net


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Richmond Mathewson]

David Bovill wrote:

< snipped out a large section >


I hope that is entertaining enough Richmond?
___

  

Humpf! I would have chosen another word, rather than 'entertaining'.

As has been mentioned previously, it won't stop somebody pinching
something if they want to.

A little bird told me that certain large computer software
companies (cough, cough), knowing that their highly paid lawyers can
trample all over people, have been gaily pinching small people's
ideas for donkey's ages and rolling them out as their own.

Ultimately, the whole thing doesn't really come down to legalese,
but whether people are honest or not.

Living as I do in a country where the computers run on a 99% Windows
installed base, and where about 90% of that is pirate, and cheating is
virtually institutionalised, I have found the current discussion
vaguely interesting from a philosophical point of view. But as a
serious discussion about the real world it seems a bit silly.

I have introduced about 50 children to RunRev over the last 5 years;
until the advent of revMedia 4 I had to explain to them that I would
NOT give them personal copies of RR, complete with licence
numbers for nothing: I think it would be fair to say that all of them
thought I was bonkers.

Don't reply by telling me that Bulgaria is "a special case" because it
isn't; it is representative of a very large section of the world; a section
with which, sooner or later, all of you who live in the 'West' (i.e. where
software piracy only really happens on a personal basis) will have to
engane with.

-

I am also sure that not very many of the RunRev community wish to
see the setting up of some sort of totalitarian snooping organisation
(although they are trying their damnedest in Britain) to check
everyone's PC on a daily basis for "naughty" stuff. So there has to
be another way to stop piracy.

One of the ways is Open Source. The only problem about that is
how the programmer os going to fill his/her fridge.

Personally I rather like the 'Freemium' concept, and intend to
release my 'Sanskrit Typewriter' in that way:

1. A web-based system that is FREE, and is capable of encoding
   Classical Sanskrit without restrictions.

2. A standalone that COSTS MONEY, that has all the capabilities
   of the FREE version and an extremely sophisticated set of
   routines for coping with all the ramifications of Devanagari
   script semi-automatically.

In theory, at least, this should reduce piracy of the end product,
as the free version will be capable of doing anything that the
"casual Sanskrit hobbyist" (err . . . work that one out) will need.

I will keep the code tightly against my chest!
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[David Bovill]

2009/10/21 François Chaplais 

> Thanks for the feedback. I work in (applied) mathematics, and in this
> fields patents are a no-no. You cannot patent a mathematical idea. The best
> you can do is disseminate it and hope it will have a great number of
> children (I will not digress on the muddy market of scientific publishing).
>
> For instance, JPEG is compression over a discrete cosine transform.  The
> DCT is not copyrighted, it is a mathematical transform. However, it seems to
> me that incorporating into some code that runs on a computer system may make
> it (the code) fit for some form of copyright; moreover, if it is embedded
> into some hardware, the hardware may be patended. Is this right?
>

Roughly - yes. Most IP protection relies on simple legal hacks, and the
entire framework is pretty much a mess in the digital era. My favourite from
of IP protection is the use of "Trade Secrets" - wickedly and quite stupidly
effective.

2009/10/21 Lynn Fredricks 

>From what I can see by all the patents coming out of Apple, you can patent
> just about anything if you wrap it right in legalese ;-)
>

:)  A nice quote from the current head of Creative Commons based on
comparing todays legal climate with the 1920's "anything that makes Jazz
illegal has got to be wrong" - or to take an older example imagine a world
in which culinary recipes were subject to IP laws - good or bad for the
restaurant trade?

Luckily we do have options to help shape a more sane form of sharing,
competing and cooperating. Abandoning law altogether is not an option - it
will just be shaped and used by others. Personally I admire people who use
it sensibly for social purposes. All law is code.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[David Bovill]

Replying here:  I think Peter forked this thread :)

2009/10/20 Richard Gaskin 

>
> Great stuff, David.  More than just a grand vision, it appears well thought
> out on many levels.
>
> One thing I don't understand with GPL'd code, though:
>
> What if rather than contributing, someone wanted to drive traffic to their
> own site by forking the project and enhancing a new version of it?
>
> Are there any ways to ensure that a common pool doesn't get fragmented like
> that?
>

Good stewardship. Good code. Listening and being open to change. Peter is
right that you can;t force this structurally - you have to do the opposite
and welcome the possibility of forking, just try to make sure your fork is
the best :) Like many people I wouldn't join a project that was closed, that
I couldn't get my data back out of it it were to go pear shaped or in a
direction I did not like.


> Also: Would a Rev stack need to use LGPL to maintain a clear distinction
> from the engine, or is GPL sufficiently clear on that?
>

I looked a this and discussed it with a number of people / lawyers.
Initially I assumed too that LGPL, was what was needed. I was told that GPL
was a reasonable choice - despite much of the confusing talk - most of which
relates to issues regarding low level languages and is not relevant to
scripting languages. After further research I found that there are a number
of communities that have taken this route, and it seems to have worked out
fine for them.

Adobe Flash is not open source. However you will find plenty of well
respected ActionScript that explicitly license their code GPL. I see no
reason why RevTalk cannot be licensed on the same basis as ActionScript, and
the advice I have sought and research I have done has not contradicted that.
In short there is no good reason I can find that we don't do a similar this
to say a project like Open Source
Flash- I just think we
can do it better.

We gain stronger and better protection than simple licenses alone, by
ensuring that the project is collectively owned and open to any developer
that is interested in joining. Given that the copyright belongs to that
collective organisation they are free to ammend and relicense the software
under new licenses under whatever good council they get. However you can;t
retract openness and the project can allways be forked if enough people
don't like what we do. In short if there were to be a problem with a
particular form of license, we have the added protection that the community
can release a modified license in good faith.

To the best of my knowledge the combination of both the licensing, the
limited liability and open organisational structure, together with a clear
and agreed social purpose as expresssed in the member agreement gives us the
soundest basis for creating a thriving and sustainable open content
community built around Revolution. We've got a strong community, but I think
we can improve it, and learn from each other and other projects outside of
our community.

I hope that is entertaining enough Richmond?
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Calling all open source developers

[Lynn Fredricks]

> Thanks for the feedback. I work in (applied) mathematics, and 
> in this fields patents are a no-no. You cannot patent a 
> mathematical idea. The best you can do is disseminate it and 
> hope it will have a great number of children (I will not 
> digress on the muddy market of scientific publishing).

>From what I can see by all the patents coming out of Apple, you can patent
just about anything if you wrap it right in legalese ;-)

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[François Chaplais]

Thanks for the feedback. I work in (applied) mathematics, and in this  
fields patents are a no-no. You cannot patent a mathematical idea. The  
best you can do is disseminate it and hope it will have a great number  
of children (I will not digress on the muddy market of scientific  
publishing).


For instance, JPEG is compression over a discrete cosine transform.   
The DCT is not copyrighted, it is a mathematical transform. However,  
it seems to me that incorporating into some code that runs on a  
computer system may make it (the code) fit for some form of copyright;  
moreover, if it is embedded into some hardware, the hardware may be  
patended. Is this right?


Best regards,
François
Le 21 oct. 2009 à 21:00, David Bovill a écrit :


2009/10/21 François Chaplais 


just a remark about all the legal stuff in this thread:

assume you have a non totally permissive license on your code, and  
that
somebody breaks the license, by, let us say, making a copy  of the  
code and

commercially distributing it

Now who will flex the muscle to prevent this? Who will pay the  
lawyer(s)?


If there is nothing prepared at this stage, you may as well drop  
all of

this legal stuff...



Quick answer to that:

  1. There are a number of organisations like the Free Software  
Foundation,
  that have and will continue to take on legal case which they fund,  
often
  with high profile pro-bono lawyers to defend such violations. This  
has been
  done before and they will continue to do so in order to help set  
legal

  precedents.
  2. Some of the brightest lawyers in countries all around the world  
are
  part of the open source and Creative Commons networks. I've sat on  
the
  steering committee here in the UK for Creative Commons, and can  
vouch for
  how bright and surprisingly generous these people can be. Someone  
who rips
  one of these licenses off makes a LOT of people very angry, it is  
a foolish
  company or individual that messes with this network. Much easier  
to pick on

  someone else.
  3. Being explicit about your licenses costs you nothing, help  
everyone be
  clear about what they can and cannot do, and in a direct answer to  
the
  skeptisism you rightly raise, makes a companies lawyer think  
twice, about

  breaking the terms laid out in the license.
  4. You don't need to be convinced of any of the above. None of the
  philosophy, banter and arguments littered around the internet. You  
can
  simply learn from the practices of successful communities. There  
are plenty
  of examples of robust scaleable long lasting software communities  
that have
  adopted clear open source licenses. Looking around and trying to  
find
  successful code sharing communities without any licensing - and  
you'll come
  up short. Why? I think it is reasonable to conclude that being  
clear about

  your licensing helps.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution




___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[David Bovill]

2009/10/21 François Chaplais 

> just a remark about all the legal stuff in this thread:
>
> assume you have a non totally permissive license on your code, and that
> somebody breaks the license, by, let us say, making a copy  of the code and
> commercially distributing it
>
> Now who will flex the muscle to prevent this? Who will pay the lawyer(s)?
>
> If there is nothing prepared at this stage, you may as well drop all of
> this legal stuff...


Quick answer to that:

   1. There are a number of organisations like the Free Software Foundation,
   that have and will continue to take on legal case which they fund, often
   with high profile pro-bono lawyers to defend such violations. This has been
   done before and they will continue to do so in order to help set legal
   precedents.
   2. Some of the brightest lawyers in countries all around the world are
   part of the open source and Creative Commons networks. I've sat on the
   steering committee here in the UK for Creative Commons, and can vouch for
   how bright and surprisingly generous these people can be. Someone who rips
   one of these licenses off makes a LOT of people very angry, it is a foolish
   company or individual that messes with this network. Much easier to pick on
   someone else.
   3. Being explicit about your licenses costs you nothing, help everyone be
   clear about what they can and cannot do, and in a direct answer to the
   skeptisism you rightly raise, makes a companies lawyer think twice, about
   breaking the terms laid out in the license.
   4. You don't need to be convinced of any of the above. None of the
   philosophy, banter and arguments littered around the internet. You can
   simply learn from the practices of successful communities. There are plenty
   of examples of robust scaleable long lasting software communities that have
   adopted clear open source licenses. Looking around and trying to find
   successful code sharing communities without any licensing - and you'll come
   up short. Why? I think it is reasonable to conclude that being clear about
   your licensing helps.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Calling all open source developers

[Lynn Fredricks]

> I think the underlying issue is this.  If you are entering an 
> open source project with the idea that it is either desirable 
> or possible to prevent forking, you are in the wrong place.  
> Its not that open source is the bees'
> knees necessarily, but it is what it is, and its the essence 
> of it that forking shall be possible and open to everyone.

I mostly agree with you, Peter, but maybe that's a little extreme.

Case in point, there was a big split a few years ago of the Mambo CMS -
which is now split into Mambo and Joomla. Each is going its merry way, but
neither is really taking down the other, or taking away from the other.
ZenCart is a derivative of OS Commerce, and each is going its merry way as
well.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Peter Alcibiades]

I think the underlying issue is this.  If you are entering an open source
project with the idea that it is either desirable or possible to prevent
forking, you are in the wrong place.  Its not that open source is the bees'
knees necessarily, but it is what it is, and its the essence of it that
forking shall be possible and open to everyone.

It may be hard to get one's head around this, if one is working in the
traditional commercial licensed and paid software model.  And it may not be
all that great.  But that is how it is.  If you think its important to limit
forking, don't even think of doing a project as open source.  Its 180
degrees in the wrong direction.

Peter


Björnke von Gierke wrote:
> 
> On 20 Oct 2009, at 23:34, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> 
>> Are there any ways to ensure that a common pool doesn't get  
>> fragmented like that?
> 
> no.
> 
> its _intended_ to be fragmented. 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Calling-all-open-source-developers-tp25961091p25997496.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[François Chaplais]

just a remark about all the legal stuff in this thread:

assume you have a non totally permissive license on your code, and  
that somebody breaks the license, by, let us say, making a copy  of  
the code and commercially distributing it


Now who will flex the muscle to prevent this? Who will pay the lawyer 
(s)?


If there is nothing prepared at this stage, you may as well drop all  
of this legal stuff...


My 2 cents, as usual...


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Björnke von Gierke]

On 20 Oct 2009, at 23:34, Richard Gaskin wrote:

Are there any ways to ensure that a common pool doesn't get  
fragmented like that?


no.

its _intended_ to be fragmented. And then it's the market's  
(community's) job to favour that one (or more) solution which is best.  
Up to now, it works out long term. However, it sucks to have dozens of  
non-functional x-window environments (that was back in '98 or so).  
With functional i mean "usable by installing it and then not needing  
to fiddle in the terminal for hours".


Also: Would a Rev stack need to use LGPL to maintain a clear  
distinction from the engine, or is GPL sufficiently clear on that?


As most legal questions, the answer to that depends on whom you ask ;)

What can and what can't be gpl-ed has not yet been fought about in any  
court of the world (as far as i know). Lots of companies trying to  
"steal" cearly gpl protected stuff, but never a decision on what gpl  
is and what isn't.


I say that there is a clear distinction between a stack and the  
engine, therefore it's ok to use gpl. Another person might say that it  
is one binary (when made as a standalone), so it can't be gpl- 
compatible.


I like ambiguous situations like these. But actually in Swiss rights,  
a contract is binding as long as both parties believe it to be legal,  
only when one knows it's illegal, then they'll need to change it to  
make sure it's legal from that point on. So maybe i just like the  
thought of a contract being legal as long as everyone involved knows  
nothing. :D



have fun
björnke

--

official ChatRev page:
http://bjoernke.com?target=chatrev

Chat with other RunRev developers:
go stack URL "http://bjoernke.com/chatrev/chatrev1.3b3.rev";

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Richard Gaskin]

David Bovill wrote:


2009/10/20 Richard Gaskin 

How viable is a dual license scheme if one hopes to derive revenue from
licensees?  And how exactly does one go about it?


That's exactly what I've proposed Richard! It's fairly straight forwards,
I've checked it with the FOSS people in Europe, but have a few twists to
make it work a little simpler and more flexibly. Simply put the GPL license
a sused on an interpreted language virally affects the openness of the
script, and does not have implications for the engine. What this means in
practice is that GPL licensed Rev code can be used freely by anyone, but not
compiled into a protected stack. As such all RevTalk scripts distributed as
part of an app should be made publicly available, including any libraries or
code supplied by the developer - this encourages the feedback to the
community.

However, a developer wishing to have full access to the code and to release
protected applications, can do so by taking out a commercial (dual license).
The business model I am proposing, is that the collectively owned
organisation would license this code for an annual fee entitling access to
all the communities code in closed commericial applications. This money woud
go into a central bank account, and be redistributed to developers working
on open source project deemed to be of importance to the community.

It is important that this is a legal entity, not just for fund raising
issues, but also for licensing reasons. In order to release all code dual
licensed it helps if there is one copyright holder, and this copyright
holder should be collectively owned and empowered to create commercial
licenses to the benefit of the community. The Parnership structure I am
proposing protects this as it is based on Partnership law of one partner one
vote, and allows informal agreements (such as those signed off on the web
site) to be taken into account by the judge - thus offering a more flexible
and lower cost option as compared to traditional contract based licensing.


Great stuff, David.  More than just a grand vision, it appears well 
thought out on many levels.


One thing I don't understand with GPL'd code, though:

What if rather than contributing, someone wanted to drive traffic to 
their own site by forking the project and enhancing a new version of it?


Are there any ways to ensure that a common pool doesn't get fragmented 
like that?



Also: Would a Rev stack need to use LGPL to maintain a clear distinction 
from the engine, or is GPL sufficiently clear on that?


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
 revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Andre Garzia]

I use HG and I like it... I've used GIT as well.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:30 PM, David Bovill wrote:

> I'll dig it out and send it :) Maybe I'll even talk you into using GIT :)
>
> 2009/10/20 Björnke von Gierke 
>
> > hello mr oss
> >
> > oh, now i get it, i want to be a partner then. you said you'd send me
> some
> > existing jabber code, what has become of that?
> >
> > mr chatrev
> >
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>



-- 
http://www.andregarzia.com All We Do Is Code.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[David Bovill]

I'll dig it out and send it :) Maybe I'll even talk you into using GIT :)

2009/10/20 Björnke von Gierke 

> hello mr oss
>
> oh, now i get it, i want to be a partner then. you said you'd send me some
> existing jabber code, what has become of that?
>
> mr chatrev
>
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Björnke von Gierke]

hello mr oss

oh, now i get it, i want to be a partner then. you said you'd send me  
some existing jabber code, what has become of that?


mr chatrev

On 20 Oct 2009, at 21:00, David Bovill wrote:


The Parnership structure I am
proposing protects this as it is based on Partnership law of one  
partner one
vote, and allows informal agreements (such as those signed off on  
the web
site) to be taken into account by the judge - thus offering a more  
flexible
and lower cost option as compared to traditional contract based  
licensing.


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[David Bovill]

2009/10/20 Björnke von Gierke 

>
>  what do you propose, or need, if it's not a webspace? that was my
> question.
>

At this stage - its just about saying you want in, the more people
interested, the more reason for RunRev to view it worth while taking the
energy to explicitly license their documentation and IDE code in a way in
which we can remix it as a community effort. Once they do that it would be
worth getting the site up, and then adding documentation.

For now - how about just working on code? The Jabber library we talked about
seems a good start. Alex Tweedly has expressed interest on working on it off
list, and I know that Malte was interested? I'd like to see it integrated
with ChatRev with ChatRev used for LAN based chat, and Jabber used for
robust multiplayer publish and subscribe.

Longer term this I'd like to see what can be done with Google Wave and Rev -
as Jabber is the foundation of the Google Wave open protocol, and I've
always seen Jabber as the strongest technical basis for collaborative
environments.

And as your Mr ChatRev... :)
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[David Bovill]

2009/10/20 Richard Gaskin 

>
> How viable is a dual license scheme if one hopes to derive revenue from
> licensees?  And how exactly does one go about it?
>

That's exactly what I've proposed Richard! It's fairly straight forwards,
I've checked it with the FOSS people in Europe, but have a few twists to
make it work a little simpler and more flexibly. Simply put the GPL license
a sused on an interpreted language virally affects the openness of the
script, and does not have implications for the engine. What this means in
practice is that GPL licensed Rev code can be used freely by anyone, but not
compiled into a protected stack. As such all RevTalk scripts distributed as
part of an app should be made publicly available, including any libraries or
code supplied by the developer - this encourages the feedback to the
community.

However, a developer wishing to have full access to the code and to release
protected applications, can do so by taking out a commercial (dual license).
The business model I am proposing, is that the collectively owned
organisation would license this code for an annual fee entitling access to
all the communities code in closed commericial applications. This money woud
go into a central bank account, and be redistributed to developers working
on open source project deemed to be of importance to the community.

It is important that this is a legal entity, not just for fund raising
issues, but also for licensing reasons. In order to release all code dual
licensed it helps if there is one copyright holder, and this copyright
holder should be collectively owned and empowered to create commercial
licenses to the benefit of the community. The Parnership structure I am
proposing protects this as it is based on Partnership law of one partner one
vote, and allows informal agreements (such as those signed off on the web
site) to be taken into account by the judge - thus offering a more flexible
and lower cost option as compared to traditional contract based licensing.

Happy now Richmond :)
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Björnke von Gierke]

so...

 what do you propose, or need, if it's not a webspace? that was my  
question.


I also suggested that one could make a helpful page about licenses,  
but it seems it was worded badly and taken as me needing help about  
what a license is...





--

official ChatRev page:
http://bjoernke.com?target=chatrev

Chat with other RunRev developers:
go stack URL "http://bjoernke.com/chatrev/chatrev1.3b3.rev";

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Richard Gaskin]

David Bovill wrote:

Creative Commons (CC) is not advised for code as it was not designed for it
legally speaking. Some people use it (mainly as there is no FOSS license I
know of which says "non-commercial"), but it's not advised.


One of the things I like about some forms of the CC license (of which 
there are a confusing dozen or so configurations ) is the "share 
alike" option, which renders works free of license fees only when used 
in works which are also free of license fees.


This raises a question I've had for some time:  how does one go about 
implementing something like the dual licensing of MySQL?


I don't know many other projects which even attempt dual licensing, but 
for some of my projects I like the idea of maintaining a revenue stream 
from the product while also giving it away.


One of the downsides to relying solely on services as the revenue source 
from software is that it disincentivizes good design: if a product is 
sufficiently complete and easy to use it requires no consulting.


Without users covering the costs of development through license fees, 
FOSS projects are limited to:


a) projects sufficiently trivial that they don't require much time
   from the programmer.

b) big projects which are complex enough to require supplemental
   services.

c) some strategic value to an outside funder to make it worth their
   while to pay for it.

d) programmers who've been successful enough with paying work that
   they can finally enjoy being able to work for free.


How viable is a dual license scheme if one hopes to derive revenue from 
licensees?  And how exactly does one go about it?


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
 revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[David Bovill]

2009/10/20 Andre Garzia 

>
> GPL - if it touches it then it needs to be FOSS. It is a viral license
> since
> everything that touches it must also be GPL, by touch understand link, if
> it
> links (in the compiler sense) then it needs to be GPL, so I don't think it
> is a good license for Revolution since I don't know how the interaction of
> the standalone builder using closed technology conflicts with the link
> part.
>
> BSD - my favorite license, it is free for you to do whatever you want and
> thats all, sell it, distribute it, change it, we don't care.
>
> LGPL - a less fanatic GPL, allows linking, can't tell much about it.
>
> MIT/X11 - I think it is like the BSD license right?
>
> CC - many people use creative commons these for software. I've only used it
> for text, but it might work.
>
> We can always use some (free) lawyer advise...
>

Creative Commons (CC) is not advised for code as it was not designed for it
legally speaking. Some people use it (mainly as there is no FOSS license I
know of which says "non-commercial"), but it's not advised.

Like most people I'm a fan of BSD/MIT/X11 licenses, and will use them. But
for this project I'm going to go for something more fun, which needs the GPL
and dual licensing for people who want to include closed code in their
applications. So like Björnke suggests there will be a variety of licenses
available for people to use.

The community will be constituted in a minimal and flexible way - it will be
registered in the UK, possibly in Scotland for various reasons. Any
developer can join from any country, by signing and posting in a pdf,
everyone will be protected by limited liability, and partners are equal.
There will be a mechanism in place for people who simply want to join but
not be a full legal partner to be represented in any decision making. The
organisation is needed for the funding applications that I'll be putting in,
and I'll be taking the legal responsibility to file accounts annually, as I
do for a number of other organisations. So no worries there.

2009/10/20 Björnke von Gierke 

>
> What exactly do you propose, do you need a url/host (i have a host, but no
> url, i do know people that have rev-community related urls who would share
> them if there's "real and helpful content").
>

I've got the hosting space, and a domain to use "www.rev-co.de", but would
be more than happy to use / work with another domain as long as it was owned
by the community and not an individual or company. I've had the web site up
and taken it down, as frankly it is not important for developers who need
the stuff directly in the Rev IDE - it is an unecessary extra step to have
to go check a web site.

The web site is more for promotional reasons for RunRev, and it can
certainly be got back up - all the code is there to allow direct downloads
and uploads from the IDE to the site. It's not a hacky site I put together,
but based on Trac - so it is minimal and looks good. I've just added the
code for integrating the wiki and repository (svn) into the IDE.

I've done test and written code to export all the Rev documentation to the
site and integrate it, but took it down as there is no explicit license for
this provided by RunRev. I've suggested that RunRev license the docs
themselves under a Creative Commons license - perhaps non-commerical +
attribution, and if they do this I'll upload the text and images to the
site.

Anyway there you go - all the exciting bits (just for Richmond :) And thanks
for all of you that emailed me off list!
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Thierry]

LGPL - a less  GPL, .



May be this will give some ideas ?

Copied from http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=148162


Once and for all, Perl is distributed under both the GPL AND the  
Artistic license. The goal, explicitely stated by Larry, of this  
double licensing is to make everybody happy: suits can use the  
Artistic License (which he describes as an antidote to the GPL) so  
they can use it in commercial software, and rabid GNU zealots see  
their beloved GPL being used.


The goal (once again explicitely stated by Larry) is not to have a  
legally sound scheme, it is to quiet down both sides of the Open- 
Source vs Free Software debate, plus commercial software producers.  
In fact it is designed precisely to avoid that kind of GPL/LGPL nit- 
picking.


See this interview(1) for Larry's description of this hack, and a  
legal analysis of the Artistic License in "Essay on the Artistic  
License"(2)




(1) interview:  http://lwn.net/2001/features/LarryWall/

(2) Artistic license : http://www.theoretic.com/licenses/oal.html



And if you read the comments about artistic license, then, it starts  
to be real fun, or not :-)




Regards,

Thierry




___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Thierry]

Le 20 oct. 09 à 16:14, Richard Gaskin a écrit :



No code is an island.

Every line of code written in any language is dependent on many other
components.  In the Win and OS X worlds, where many good FOSS  
projects live, most of those components are not open source.



But definitely not talking of Linux distros...

That's may be one of the main point with those communities ;
to avoid the scheme you have shown ; a good one by the way.

Bring back to me some memories...
I humbly suggest to read this free ebook available here :

http://www.artofcommunityonline.org/about

Could give some ideas before starting any project
with some chance of success.

All the best
Thierry

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Andre Garzia]

BvG,
I am not a license expert, I've studied them in brief. So take this email
more like a personal opinion than a factual report. I know you'd prefer a
factual thing but I am in no position to give it to you. David has more info
on this I bet.

GPL - if it touches it then it needs to be FOSS. It is a viral license since
everything that touches it must also be GPL, by touch understand link, if it
links (in the compiler sense) then it needs to be GPL, so I don't think it
is a good license for Revolution since I don't know how the interaction of
the standalone builder using closed technology conflicts with the link part.

BSD - my favorite license, it is free for you to do whatever you want and
thats all, sell it, distribute it, change it, we don't care.

LGPL - a less fanatic GPL, allows linking, can't tell much about it.

MIT/X11 - I think it is like the BSD license right?

CC - many people use creative commons these for software. I've only used it
for text, but it might work.

We can always use some (free) lawyer advise...

2009/10/20 Björnke von Gierke 

> I still am interested, same as when we talked about similar stuff in the
> pubs of edinburgh.
>
> What exactly do you propose, do you need a url/host (i have a host, but no
> url, i do know people that have rev-community related urls who would share
> them if there's "real and helpful content").
>
> What is there to discuss anyway? Chapter? Legal place of residence? Just go
> ahead and the ass(es like me) will follow?
>
> I would like to have a place with three or four licenses described in
> layman terms, which are applicable to the rev ecosystem. Not sure if this
> even fits the bill for your idea, but having a "oss and rev" dedicated site
> would be nice in my oppinion.
>
> Have fun
> Björnke
>
>
> On 20 Oct 2009, at 10:52, David Bovill wrote:
>
>  If there is anyone who would like to discuss the funding proposals, or
>> join
>> either as a full legal partner, or as an informal associate partner maybe
>> we
>> can start a discussion off list? From previous experience I'd say that
>> this
>> list is best kept to discussions regarding code, and the use of Revolution
>> -
>> I'm breaking this rule here just as a heads-up and invitation to those
>> interested in this area to help co-design this initiative :)
>>
>
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>



-- 
http://www.andregarzia.com All We Do Is Code.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Björnke von Gierke]

I still am interested, same as when we talked about similar stuff in  
the pubs of edinburgh.


What exactly do you propose, do you need a url/host (i have a host,  
but no url, i do know people that have rev-community related urls who  
would share them if there's "real and helpful content").


What is there to discuss anyway? Chapter? Legal place of residence?  
Just go ahead and the ass(es like me) will follow?


I would like to have a place with three or four licenses described in  
layman terms, which are applicable to the rev ecosystem. Not sure if  
this even fits the bill for your idea, but having a "oss and rev"  
dedicated site would be nice in my oppinion.


Have fun
Björnke

On 20 Oct 2009, at 10:52, David Bovill wrote:

If there is anyone who would like to discuss the funding proposals,  
or join
either as a full legal partner, or as an informal associate partner  
maybe we
can start a discussion off list? From previous experience I'd say  
that this
list is best kept to discussions regarding code, and the use of  
Revolution -

I'm breaking this rule here just as a heads-up and invitation to those
interested in this area to help co-design this initiative :)


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Richard Gaskin]

Peter Alcibiades wrote:

> Open source is not about what it runs on.  The main point of
> open source is that the source code shall be available, and
> modification of it shall be permitted as long as those
> modifications are also put back.  Its the modification issue
> that matters here, the practical effect on the ability to
> modify of the use of a proprietary language and IDE.

No code is an island.

Every line of code written in any language is dependent on many other
components.  In the Win and OS X worlds, where many good FOSS projects 
live, most of those components are not open source.


All FOSS software written for OS X and Windows fails the same purity
test which would reject Rev, as do interactions with most third-party
drivers like those from ATI, Nvidia, HP, etc.

Moreover, even GNU Linux itself fails this purity test by relying on
proprietary BIOS and using a proprietary chip instruction set.

Here's how the presumably "approved" and "not approved" models stack up 
for the Rev world:



   "Purist-approved" FOSS model on OS X and Win:

   -
   |Your Scripts   |
   -
   |   Rev Libraries   |
   -
   | Rev Engine|  modifiable
   - ---
   |  Display Drivers  |   not modifiable
   -
   |   Print Drivers   |
   -
   |  Operating System |
   -
   |BIOS   |
   -
   | Processor |
   -


   "Purist-disapproved" FOSS model on OS X and Win:

   -
   |Your Scripts   |
   -
   |   Rev Libraries   |  modifiable
   - ---
   | Rev Engine|   not modifiable
   -
   |  Display Drivers  |
   -
   |   Print Drivers   |
   -
   |  Operating System |
   -
   |BIOS   |
   -
   | Processor |
   -


Not a huge difference by any measure.

If we measure this in lines of source, the difference between the top 
and bottom for Mac and Win FOSS projects might be around 2%.


If we were to characterize contributions to a program by frequency of 
executed call, even GNU Linux might find itself dependent on proprietary
code most of the time, since nearly everything it does is compiled to 
native machine code using the proprietary Intel instruction set.



> ...
> Look, here is a practical example.  There are quite a few things
> in Rev for Linux that are just broken.  Printing for instance.
> Suppose I write and distribute an app under the GPL.  Done in
> Python, someone who is really irritated with this can modify Python
> itself, then fix the app.  It may be unlikely, but this possibility,
> and the power of forking Python, is part of what makes OSS developers
> responsive.  Done in Rev, the same person basically has no recourse
> except to wait, as I am waiting patiently, for 4.0.

Both Windows and OS X ship with thousands of known bugs which cannot be 
addressed by the user.  How does the principle that exempts them not 
also apply to systems like Rev?



> If Edinburgh falls victim to a giant tsunami down the Firth of Forth
> then, like KDE with Trolltech, the powers of the GPL license holder
> to my app are in practice very limited.  There is a real point here.

An important point indeed, but it's not specific to FOSS projects. That 
would affect everyone, even (if not especially) developers of 
proprietary commercial products.


When the engine was maintained by MetaCard Corp. there was the option of 
a code escrow.  Very few licensees took advantage of that as it was, as 
you can imagine, quite expense.  But the availability of such an option 
put a lot of minds at rest.


Does anyone here know if RunRev Ltd. offers a code escrow option?

Perhaps Kevin could chime in here and discuss options for the code base 
in a SHTF scenario.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
 revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[David Bovill]

2009/10/20 Richmond Mathewson 

> Fredrik Andersson wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry, but, frankly, the only thing that excited me about your message was
>>>
>>> "November launch";  it is funny how information is leaked out to the
>>> proletariat . . .  :)
>>>


>> http://www.runrev.com/newsletter/october/issue80/
>>
>> :)
>>
>>
>>  Humpf: living in Bulgaria affects one's brain a-n-d t-h-i-n-g-s s-l-o-w
> d-o-w-n.  ...  :)


You clearly need more excitement - not sure I can supply it though :)
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Richmond Mathewson]

Fredrik Andersson wrote:





Sorry, but, frankly, the only thing that excited me about your 
message was


"November launch";  it is funny how information is leaked out to the 
proletariat . . .  :)




http://www.runrev.com/newsletter/october/issue80/

:)


Humpf: living in Bulgaria affects one's brain a-n-d t-h-i-n-g-s s-l-o-w 
d-o-w-n.  ...  :)

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Fredrik Andersson]

Sorry, but, frankly, the only thing that excited me about your  
message was


"November launch";  it is funny how information is leaked out to the  
proletariat . . .  :)




http://www.runrev.com/newsletter/october/issue80/

:)
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Richmond Mathewson]

David Bovill wrote:

It is perfectly acceptible to release RevTalk code under the terms of the
GPL, MIT or other licenses. This has been done before, and debated
extensively over the years in other related platforms - even where the
engine itself is closed.

Purists, like to argue over the issue, and debates can get heated (and
usually tedious). My personal point of view is that there is precedence here
and a number of thriving communities have grown up by using open source and
open content licenses in similar circumstances. As that is the purpose, I'll
go with what works and is helpful with regard to community building, and
stick to arguing the philosophy down the pub (which is a much more enjoyable
place for those sort of debates).

Building a practical and truely collaborative open source community around
RevTalk is certainly helped if the "mothership" takes a clear and
encouraging stance on these issues. I have long argued on this list and
elsewhere that RunRev should adopt an explicit "open source strategy" to
encourage proper collaboration between developers on a clear and firm legal
basis. This does not mean open sourcing their engine, but it does mean
taking the small steps needed to support and encourage community efforts in
this area. Releasing the documentation under an open content (Creative
Commons) license would be symbolic and help. Explicitly releasing the code
in the IDE under an MIT or other open source license, and encouraging
integration with other similarly licensed IDEs (like MC IDE) would also
help.

As far as I can gather from talking to Kevin, Mark and the other folks at
RunRev - they have nothing against these moves which I found encouraging. As
far as I can tell it is simply that none of the developers there have
experience of working on open source projects, and the use of open licenses,
and as such they are not quite sure as to how they would support / engage
with such and effort given their limited resources.

I proposed to Kevin and a number of developers at RunRev Live, that maybe we
can move this area forwards by creating a community led project with an
explicit remit to develop open source code libraries and widgets in RevTalk.
This would be an arms length legal entity, with RunRev or any other
interested party able to join as a full member and have a say with regard to
the projects direction.

Based on the positive feedback to these ideas from the conference, I've
decided to put what time I have into taking this forwards with the aim of
launching it in time for the RunRev November launch. 

Sorry, but, frankly, the only thing that excited me about your message was

"November launch";  it is funny how information is leaked out to the 
proletariat . . .  :)

The organisation would
be not-for-profit, in that any money derived from activities such as
commercial closed source dual licensing of code libraries would go back into
the pool to pay developers to work on open source libraries. I've discussed
this proposal with a number of funders here in the UK and it seems
encouraging to apply for some grants to develop this community as well.

Any individual developer or company is fully entitled to join, and the
organisation will have an open membership. The aim is simple to define
collectively what tools and resources the community would like to develop as
open source code and resource these efforts. The secondary aim is to engage
with other open source and open content communities, building on the
strengths and accessibility of the language to be immediately understandable
to any programmer, and encourage interoperability between RevTalk and other
open source frameworks.

My personal interest in the project is in the legal and community side, and
I want to combine this with my passion for RevTalk to pilot a truly
innovative collaborative community, not just based around code, but also
open media content as well. While the Revolution engine is not open, the
accessibility of the language, the free version of the IDE in RevMedia, and
it's ability to appeal to designers and non-developers interested in media,
place it in a strong position to serve as a foundation for a rich "open
content" community.

I'm hopeful that other developers will share these goals, and that we can
work together to support the wider adoption of the language and the creation
of higher quality open code and media resources for the community.

If there is anyone who would like to discuss the funding proposals, or join
either as a full legal partner, or as an informal associate partner maybe we
can start a discussion off list? From previous experience I'd say that this
list is best kept to discussions regarding code, and the use of Revolution -
I'm breaking this rule here just as a heads-up and invitation to those
interested in this area to help co-design this initiative :)
___

  


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revol

Re: Calling all open source developers

[David Bovill]

It is perfectly acceptible to release RevTalk code under the terms of the
GPL, MIT or other licenses. This has been done before, and debated
extensively over the years in other related platforms - even where the
engine itself is closed.

Purists, like to argue over the issue, and debates can get heated (and
usually tedious). My personal point of view is that there is precedence here
and a number of thriving communities have grown up by using open source and
open content licenses in similar circumstances. As that is the purpose, I'll
go with what works and is helpful with regard to community building, and
stick to arguing the philosophy down the pub (which is a much more enjoyable
place for those sort of debates).

Building a practical and truely collaborative open source community around
RevTalk is certainly helped if the "mothership" takes a clear and
encouraging stance on these issues. I have long argued on this list and
elsewhere that RunRev should adopt an explicit "open source strategy" to
encourage proper collaboration between developers on a clear and firm legal
basis. This does not mean open sourcing their engine, but it does mean
taking the small steps needed to support and encourage community efforts in
this area. Releasing the documentation under an open content (Creative
Commons) license would be symbolic and help. Explicitly releasing the code
in the IDE under an MIT or other open source license, and encouraging
integration with other similarly licensed IDEs (like MC IDE) would also
help.

As far as I can gather from talking to Kevin, Mark and the other folks at
RunRev - they have nothing against these moves which I found encouraging. As
far as I can tell it is simply that none of the developers there have
experience of working on open source projects, and the use of open licenses,
and as such they are not quite sure as to how they would support / engage
with such and effort given their limited resources.

I proposed to Kevin and a number of developers at RunRev Live, that maybe we
can move this area forwards by creating a community led project with an
explicit remit to develop open source code libraries and widgets in RevTalk.
This would be an arms length legal entity, with RunRev or any other
interested party able to join as a full member and have a say with regard to
the projects direction.

Based on the positive feedback to these ideas from the conference, I've
decided to put what time I have into taking this forwards with the aim of
launching it in time for the RunRev November launch. The organisation would
be not-for-profit, in that any money derived from activities such as
commercial closed source dual licensing of code libraries would go back into
the pool to pay developers to work on open source libraries. I've discussed
this proposal with a number of funders here in the UK and it seems
encouraging to apply for some grants to develop this community as well.

Any individual developer or company is fully entitled to join, and the
organisation will have an open membership. The aim is simple to define
collectively what tools and resources the community would like to develop as
open source code and resource these efforts. The secondary aim is to engage
with other open source and open content communities, building on the
strengths and accessibility of the language to be immediately understandable
to any programmer, and encourage interoperability between RevTalk and other
open source frameworks.

My personal interest in the project is in the legal and community side, and
I want to combine this with my passion for RevTalk to pilot a truly
innovative collaborative community, not just based around code, but also
open media content as well. While the Revolution engine is not open, the
accessibility of the language, the free version of the IDE in RevMedia, and
it's ability to appeal to designers and non-developers interested in media,
place it in a strong position to serve as a foundation for a rich "open
content" community.

I'm hopeful that other developers will share these goals, and that we can
work together to support the wider adoption of the language and the creation
of higher quality open code and media resources for the community.

If there is anyone who would like to discuss the funding proposals, or join
either as a full legal partner, or as an informal associate partner maybe we
can start a discussion off list? From previous experience I'd say that this
list is best kept to discussions regarding code, and the use of Revolution -
I'm breaking this rule here just as a heads-up and invitation to those
interested in this area to help co-design this initiative :)
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Peter Alcibiades]

Richmond has a point, though, when he says:  "to describe something which is
written using a proprietary language and/or IDE as Open Source is
potentially misleading"

Open source is not about what it runs on.  The main point of open source is
that the source code shall be available, and modification of it shall be
permitted as long as those modifications are also put back.  Its the
modification issue that matters here, the practical effect on the ability to
modify of the use of a proprietary language and IDE.  

This was always the issue in the Gnome/KDE wars.  The licenses were the
same.  But anyone could get Gtk anytime to modify the Gnome code. They could
modify or fork Gtk if they felt like it, too. They could only get Qt under
some restrictions, and they could not modify or fork it no matter what.  So
the Gnome people worried that KDE's open status was effectively at the mercy
of a few guys in Trolltech.  They did have a point, and you notice that the
wars have come to an end now that Qt is really open source, and been
succeeded by the Mono wars.

We could argue that with Rev, particularly now that Media is out for all
platforms, free, and pretty powerful, that this doesn't matter.  I'm not
sure how much it matters (after all, I am using Rev quite cheerfully!).  But
there is a real point here:  the license may be the GPL, but you've got to
admit that your power to take advantage of the powers that license gives you
are more limited if you have to exercise them by acquiring a proprietary IDE
and language, than if you just exercise them by downloading (eg) Python.

Look, here is a practical example.  There are quite a few things in Rev for
Linux that are just broken.  Printing for instance.  Suppose I write and
distribute an app under the GPL.  Done in Python, someone who is really
irritated with this can modify Python itself, then fix the app.  It may be
unlikely, but this possibility, and the power of forking Python, is part of
what makes OSS developers responsive.  Done in Rev, the same person
basically has no recourse except to wait, as I am waiting patiently, for
4.0.  If Edinburgh falls victim to a giant tsunami down the Firth of Forth
then, like KDE with Trolltech, the powers of the GPL license holder to my
app are in practice very limited.  There is a real point here.

Did I say 'patiently' by the way?  Its all relative!

Peter

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Calling-all-open-source-developers-tp25961091p25970062.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Richmond Mathewson]

Peter Alcibiades wrote:

Richmond, I am no expert, but isn't it a matter of the GPL?  If its released
under the GPL, and if source is supplied on demand, its open source.  Now it
may have been written in a proprietary language, but I think that is
technically allowed.  Though there will be those who will object, and this
was at the bottom of the Gnome/KDE wars, where the problem was that Qt was
not 'free', or not totally free, whereas obviously Gtk was.

It is true, that even if source is available, one of the aims of OSS can be
subverted if access to the language or tools is restricted, so the purists
have a point.  But I think, technically, you can have OSS stuff written in a
proprietary language.

Peter
  
I am not picking a fight with Open Source; I am pointing out that to 
describe

something which is written using a proprietary language and/or IDE as
Open Source is potentially misleading.

There should be a term whereby, for the sake of argument, were I to do
the following:

Release a standalone and the stacks from which it were built (using
RunRev) as both FREE and ADAPTABLE, EXTENSIBLE by anybody who
wants.

Could be described without using either 'Open Source' or
'Closed Source' (and 'Semi-Open' is as daft as it sounds -
'half-empty', 'half-full', or 'half-baked').
---
Certainly, when I offered some stuff to Ubuntu, including original stacks,
they didn't want it (and not because the programs were rubbish) because
they were not TOTALLY Open Source.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Peter Alcibiades]

Richmond, I am no expert, but isn't it a matter of the GPL?  If its released
under the GPL, and if source is supplied on demand, its open source.  Now it
may have been written in a proprietary language, but I think that is
technically allowed.  Though there will be those who will object, and this
was at the bottom of the Gnome/KDE wars, where the problem was that Qt was
not 'free', or not totally free, whereas obviously Gtk was.

It is true, that even if source is available, one of the aims of OSS can be
subverted if access to the language or tools is restricted, so the purists
have a point.  But I think, technically, you can have OSS stuff written in a
proprietary language.

Peter
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Calling-all-open-source-developers-tp25961091p25963152.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Richmond Mathewson]

Thierry wrote:


Le 19 oct. 09 à 18:48, Richmond Mathewson a écrit :


Richard Gaskin wrote:
I'm putting together some notes for an article at revJournal.com on 
open source projects done with Rev.


If you're working on complete applications or even just components 
for the Rev community, let's use the pages at revJournal.com to help 
raise the visibility of your efforts.


Please reply off-list to me at: ambassa...@fourthworld.com

Kindly include a brief description of your project, URL to its home 
page, and please note which FOSS license the project uses.


Thanks -

Pardon my goofiness, but as far as In understand an Open Source 
project is not

possble using RunRev because RunRev is itself proprietary.

I ran up against this several years ago when I offered 2 programs of 
mine to
Ubuntu, who, to put it nicely, got "all hoity-toity" because the 
source code

was not completely open.


Hi Richmond,

The Ubuntu software repository is divided into four components - main, 
restricted, universe and multiverse - on the basis of our ability to 
support that software, and whether or not it meets the goals laid out 
in our Free Software Philosophy.


Read more here :

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components


My 2 cents

Thank you, Thierry; I have read all that stuff a while ago; and almost 
fell asleep

because it was so boring.

In my youth I was a fanatic, shouting for various 'pure' causes from 
various rooftops:
had I come across it sooner the Free Software Philosophy might have been 
one of them.
However, age and experience has shown me that dividing things up into 
hard-and-fast

black/white categories is, ultimately counter-productive.

As far as I recall, my reply to the Ubuntu people (to whom I had offered 
2 reasonable
programs about the phonemes of English) was something like "boil your 
heads".


I am, after all, a great fan of Open Source software, whose computers 
almost exclusively
use Open Source applications; all feeding into work I do using Runtime 
Revolution, which

I love, and is far from Open Source.

Now if I come 'bearing gifts" the old adage; "Don't look a gift-horse in 
the mouth" should
hold good. Feel free to, politely say "No Thanks", but not to get all 
high-and-mighty with
some 'pure' Philosophy, because pure philosophies are like anything, 
when pressed
against the wall (pushed to their reductio ad absurdam) the pips, 
inevitably, squeak.

--

As far as I am concerned, Richard made a small mistake in using the term 
"Open Source"

when he might have been better to use "Given Away Free" in its place.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Thierry]

Le 19 oct. 09 à 18:48, Richmond Mathewson a écrit :


Richard Gaskin wrote:
I'm putting together some notes for an article at revJournal.com  
on open source projects done with Rev.


If you're working on complete applications or even just components  
for the Rev community, let's use the pages at revJournal.com to  
help raise the visibility of your efforts.


Please reply off-list to me at: ambassa...@fourthworld.com

Kindly include a brief description of your project, URL to its  
home page, and please note which FOSS license the project uses.


Thanks -

Pardon my goofiness, but as far as In understand an Open Source  
project is not

possble using RunRev because RunRev is itself proprietary.

I ran up against this several years ago when I offered 2 programs  
of mine to
Ubuntu, who, to put it nicely, got "all hoity-toity" because the  
source code

was not completely open.


Hi Richmond,

The Ubuntu software repository is divided into four components -  
main, restricted, universe and multiverse - on the basis of our  
ability to support that software, and whether or not it meets the  
goals laid out in our Free Software Philosophy.


Read more here :

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components


My 2 cents

Regards,
Thierry



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Richard Gaskin]

Richmond Mathewson wrote:


Richard Gaskin wrote:
I'm putting together some notes for an article at revJournal.com on 
open source projects done with Rev.


If you're working on complete applications or even just components for 
the Rev community, let's use the pages at revJournal.com to help raise 
the visibility of your efforts.


Please reply off-list to me at: ambassador at fourthworld.com

Kindly include a brief description of your project, URL to its home 
page, and please note which FOSS license the project uses.


Pardon my goofiness, but as far as In understand an Open Source project 
is not possble using RunRev because RunRev is itself proprietary.


I ran up against this several years ago when I offered 2 programs of mine to
Ubuntu, who, to put it nicely, got "all hoity-toity" because the source code
was not completely open.


True, some people like to argue.  But very few of those people express 
any problem at all with open source projects that run on OS X and 
Windows, both of which are proprietary and necessary for the operation 
of software that runs on them.


The same is true of microchip instruction sets, on which even GNU Linux 
is dependent.  The inner workings of the Intel architecture are 
closely-held and strongly-defended "proprietary information", yet no one 
on the GNU projects seems to have any problem with that.


If using microchip and OS interfaces are okay, wouldn't that principle 
apply equally to using APIs from any closed-source system, like Rev?


To draw a line at some point in the low- to high-level hierarchy of 
computing systems on which all software runs, claiming that anything 
above the line is "bad" but below the line is "good", seems, to use a 
polite term, arbitrary.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
 revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Calling all open source developers

[Richmond Mathewson]

Richard Gaskin wrote:
I'm putting together some notes for an article at revJournal.com on 
open source projects done with Rev.


If you're working on complete applications or even just components for 
the Rev community, let's use the pages at revJournal.com to help raise 
the visibility of your efforts.


Please reply off-list to me at: ambassa...@fourthworld.com

Kindly include a brief description of your project, URL to its home 
page, and please note which FOSS license the project uses.


Thanks -

Pardon my goofiness, but as far as In understand an Open Source project 
is not

possble using RunRev because RunRev is itself proprietary.

I ran up against this several years ago when I offered 2 programs of mine to
Ubuntu, who, to put it nicely, got "all hoity-toity" because the source code
was not completely open.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution