World: r3wp

So know synthetising the informations on our forum to make it disponnible 
for every one is a very very hudge task (more than 20 000 topics 
it's hard to sort and put in value ...)

the inter documentation referecing is too a weak point some needed 
concept are maybe availlable yet some where but then you need to 
specify it into your documentation to orient the reader :)

Ashley: I have talked with Robert already

Note that RP will be bundling all those good (proven?) libs and make 
them accessible from one place. Your rebgui, but also mysql:// are 
excellent examples. But imagine your new to REBOL, wouldn't it be 
nice if there were a link on rebol.net /.com that gave you immediate 
access to these libs?

Good points, Maarten about accessibility.


If I were looking for an alternative REBOL GUI and typed REBOL GUI 
into Google, I'd probably soon conclude that there wasn't one. And 
that might end my evaluation of REBOL.


Having many useful tools scattered across personal websites has other 
weaknesses too -- look at how hard it's been for people to find Gavin 
MacKenzies's XML libraries after his personal website went offline.

I will just addon..with the vaious 'powerpacks' in place.. it is 
possible to build something similiar to 'Ruby on Rails'


I believe the French community already have some well defined framework 
called Magic!... and we have Temple(?) lying around somewhere.

That's why I am doing this. I will start as Strong Leader, simply 
to make a Fast Start. Once the powerpack is well-established others 
may (and probably want to) join.

Docs Uniserve is GPL'd ..

Can Uniserve be used for a "rails" implementation?

rails
 ?

http://www.rubyonrails.com/.. I was just reading Yeksoon's reference 
above.

wow, looking at the video http://media.nextangle.com/rails/rails_setup.mov

Marteen I think RebDB should also be part of the RP.

Yep, thanks

Rebol on Rockets!!!

don't forget make-doc! :)) and maybe pdfmaker?

I'm building some extensions for pdfmaker so that might be a good 
one

Uniserve is very nice, I have been using it to prototype/test before 
I upload to actual server.  It broke my heart it was gpl.  BSD is 
very good choice.  Free software should not be restricted, and GPL 
has too many of those.    makedoc/spec is the killer app,  and in 
that intensional programming vein is coursing all the best documentation, 
and REBOL  does a fine job of documenting itself because it is so 
semantic by nature.  To understand how to use a moderately complex 
system like a full-featured web server, it is going to be important 
to capture the thinking of those who wrote the code.  REBOL parsing 
allows all information pertaining to the code to be right there with 
the code,  and a function of  DO -ing anything.  the standard documentation 
scheme should follow how REBOL [] headers work, and simply have the 
makedoc embedded within the scripts.

but if you close free software, it is not free to your users, so 
restricted, which it should not be?

BSD is good.  GPL is not.

was all I was saying.  I don't mind that uniserv is gpl, but thing 
gpl incompatible with BSD

BSD allows jailing free birds. GPL forces to let them go free next 
spring :) and only if they want to go with their binary offsprings.

BSD->GPL works pretty well. GPL->special license agreement will work 
pretty well to. But jaillable software usually has to be paid.

what do you mean by jailable.  not a term I am familiar with regarding 
software.

For that matter, what do you mean by software being paid. Do you 
mean paid for?

no, I am saying that any software that purports to be "free" should 
not restrict my use.  It is not free if it forces me into a box.

it is coercive in the same way EULA is

jailable: taking free software, change a bit, close it. BSD.

paid: yes. goto DcKimbel, say "your Uniserv is wooonderfull!! How 
many bucks". I am sure you can make a deal and jail - uhm, close 
your project as much as you want.

But use has to be restrict somehow. either your use, or the use of 
your users. some people think its better to restrict nobody except 
the restricters. means you in this case.

very good.  crazy dual star that free as in spirit  <-->  free as 
in not paid.

BSD guys may think "ah, but you are a coder! much more like us. about 
the users, well.." ;)

GPL says nothing about "not paid". It says, if your * breaks  you 
can go to everyone who can repair *. be * car, refridgerator or some 
softwarre.

while closed means, you can go to the central commitee of **, politely 
inform them and hope they dont jail you.

yeah, well, I'm a hobbyist.  I write a lot of code that I don't mind 
people using however they like so long as they don

t bug me about it.

then GPL or BSD should make no difference to you?

well, it sorta does.  because what if I want to release something 
someday as an actual product, and I go digging around trying to figure 
out what is what and I find gpl in there alongside bsd.

If I would have known beforehand the restrictions that gpl would 
place not only on me, but that I would be forced to pass on. . .

that's a deal breaker for me and I bounce the gpl stuff.

not "free" enough in a hobbyist sense.

i guess that is why GPL forces you to make everything GPL up front.

you will not find GPL "somewhere" then.

yep, but I started coding long before I understood anything about 
licensing.

and anything longer than one page is done out of personal principle

if you make an actuall product, i guess your base contributors would 
like some money too.

the issue with free is not about money

to me

Personally, I like the dual GPL/commercial licenses, where you must 
pay money to be allowed to restrict your users. Either that or the 
Classpath-style GPL with linking exception, for those that don't 
care about the freedom down the line, but do care about contributions 
to the library itself.

Well, you said "To understand how to use a moderately complex system 
like a full-featured web server, it is going to be important to capture 
the thinking of those who wrote the code.". and then you want to 
force your users not to look at it?

BrianH, i agree.