World: r3wp

business should be allowed ... and to allow business, you should 
not push anyone to unwanted/unrelated actions ....

I guess that's why IBM likes GPL so much...

Pekr, relax. That's ground covered by Rebol.

Maybe someone else will come along with a BSD rebol clone one day, 
but Rebol and Orca being at opposite ends of an axis is not a bad 
situation. Nicely balanced.

OK, should relax probably. It is just, it seems a bit contraproductive 
to me, which is a pity .... because if RT could use some good things, 
maybe they would decide to open some of theirs ones, as e.g. Console, 
etc., but it is a pity, the way for cooperation is ... nearly impossible 
....

If they release BSD code, it can go into Orca :-)

They work for and against each other in different ways. If it is 
changed from LGPL to BSD then there will be other restrictions, but 
also other advantages.

Exactly

Anton - well, I am probably not good at all at licensing stuff ... 
what restrictions there could be with BSD license?

Alright, I'd better get back to coding...

Orca coding?

Remember the AltME world. World name: Orca, guest account: guest, 
guest password: guest

REBOL ==> Orca ==> REVOLT

BSD is compatible with LGPL

Commercial is compatible with LGPL

Only enforcement of LGPL is that if you change the core the you need 
to post changes.

So you modify some LGPL code your changes need to be opened. But 
if you just link to it, your code stays yours.

Advantage, nobody can stop the REVOLT.

But anyone can take advantage of it.

If you link to LGPL, you also have to publish your binary objects

Don't follow that implication, sharing binaries doesn't hurt anyone 
or force anything.

It probably makes it a lot easier to reverse engineer your code. 
That may be an objection of RT

Nah.

*Jaime* cloack again

Jaime, an advantage to OpenRebol is that we don't have to go through 
changing all the code that looks like this:

#define orResult(t,v) \
    orSetTF(a1, t); \
    a1->index = v;

#define orResultCopy(v)     orCopyV(a1,v)

#define orResultSeries(t,w,idx) \
    orSetTF(a1, t); \
    orSetSeries(a1,w,idx)

#define orResultSTRING(i)   orResultSeries(OT_STRING,i,0)
#define orResultFILE(i)     orResultSeries(OT_FILE,i,0)
#define orResultBLOCK(i)    orResultSeries(OT_BLOCK,i,0)
#define orResultBINARY(i)   orResultSeries(OT_BINARY,i,0)
#define orResultNONE        orResult(OT_NONE,0)

etc.. etc...

All those "or" prefixes may refer equally to "ORca" or to "OpenRebol" 
 :)

Anyway, it's hardly a revolt, is it ?

I think it's a revolting name :)

Kaj, just reading Orca code for now, no creation happening yet :)

Same here

Anyone with any experience with Jabber clients ? I just tried using 
Psi to create an account on jabber.org without much luck. (a possible 
problem with certificate and unresolved host error.)

Do you have a gmail-account?

gaim registers without problems

I collected some links for Orca's scattered resources in the Orca 
world and wrote a how-to for compiling it

Could you please add the compiling instructions to  the trac wiki?

I'd prefer not to do double work. Besides, there not general instructions, 
but alternate instructions for compiling with my Builder tool. Not 
generic enough for the wiki, I think, unless they would prove very 
popular

Ok. Your call.

I'm trying to bring some added value

Does Orca have SWIG bindings ?

Not that I've noticed. But I am not fully immersed in Orca yet.

No, and I'm not at all sure SWIG bindings would be the best solution 
to interfacing with external libraries, for Orca

SWIG bindings are one-to-one bindings, mapping a C library call to 
a function in the high-level language. This disregards the richer 
ways of expression that are possible in the high-level language. 
As we know, REBOL is especially powerful, and I think it would be 
better to write bindings in a more suitable way

This problem can be observed in Python, which usually has one-to-one 
style bindings. A language like Io, for example, has bindings that 
were designed to fit well with its object-oriented design

I think the best way in REBOL is, as usual, to design dialects on 
the abstraction level of the user, and implement them in terms of 
the available C libraries. This is what Orca does so far with Qt 
and OpenGL

Apart from cleaner code, it probably makes for better performance 
as well

In rebol, it would be faster, yes. Those other compiled languages 
can more easily afford to map every function.

Yes, I suppose there would be a big difference between compiled and 
interpreted languages

My first thought a few years ago was SWIG as well, but after looking 
into it, I concluded that it was more suitable to some languages 
than others

Is anybody planning to take on Orca development ? I wanted to reply 
to Karl R. message in the Orca mailing list asking him for 1) move 
license to MIT/BSD 2) what he doesn't like about rebol that prompted 
him to abandon the project

Karl is continuing with Thune, his other language of his own design. 
His principle is to design languages based on the same REBOL syntax, 
but with different semantics. So, Thune is still a lot like REBOL, 
but not compatible