World: r3wp

If you want to run the demo, you can now do so

I'm not sure if there is a hostkit version yet for OSX. Mine comes 
from Carl.

yes, ok

The shared library for OS X is in the Git repository

ok, I haven't tried it.

The host kit became available for OS X when Andreas solved the linking 
problem on OS X for Carl

ok

Any results?

sorry, I have other things to do right now.

Here's the new manual for the Boron OpenGL interface:

http://urlan.sourceforge.net/boron/doc/UserManualGL.html

Thanks, I was curious to see that. Interesting first approach to 
an OpenGL wrapper dialect.

Boron just added an embedded assembler via LibJIT

A bit surprizing move, I guess that Red project is stimulating competition. 
:-)

well, then R3 is not a competition :-)

Seems like it :-)

Graham from Red - "Karl has failed to engage with the Rebol community 
as far as I can see."


Personally, I have found Karl very approachable and responsive on 
the Boron MIL.

What Graham meant is the "integation" with the Rebol community. I 
can't remember him much from ML, altme, web forums. But - that does 
not mean, his project is not usefull ...

He opened up all the standard open source avenues, so we are supposed 
to engage with him. But with few exceptions, we didn't

Just a remider that boron is an fully open-source REBOL-like evaluator 
built-in C. It has 23 datatypes and more than 100 "native" functions. 

The Boron homepage is at http://urlan.sourceforge.net/boron/

! Good point, Peter!

if it wasn't GPL it might already have supplanted R3 years ago.

I really don't understand the licensing issue about Boron. Java is 
GPL licensed and it doesn't stop people usng it. Boron is licensed 
under LGPL.. What is the impediment to adopting Boron?

Surely, it's only a possible problem if you are going to embed Boron 
inside your code?

Maybe it's that you can't look at the source and then work on a comparable 
non-*GPL project?

Java's a special case: It got popular while it was proprietary, but 
open source people wanted to use it too but they couldn't. So they 
cloned Java under a Classpath license, which eventually led to Java 
itself being GPL'ed, which may have led to Sun dying (hard to say, 
but it did kill Java's value to the company). Still, it's mostly 
the proprietary versions of Java that are in use, and the business 
model is mostly based on proprietary restrictions to the use of the 
code.

note, I didn't want to start a licensing discussioh, it was just 
an observation based on my perspective as a "curious outsider"  of 
the Boron project.

As the only comparable projects to boron seem to be REBOL and World 
(both of which are closed source),, I can't see the "not being able 
to look at the source" issue being a problem. I don't think that 
boron's licensing has anything to do with its level of popularity.

Agreed. People who can't come to terms with the LGPL, which is everywhere, 
will have to be content with REBOL and stop complaining about Boron

They should probably also stop using Chrome, Safari, OpenOffice, 
GCC, Linux and the like

Kaj - why should anyone stop using any product? That's a fanatical 
claim.

But - if GPL means, that I am supposed to open source my commercial 
app, not just eventual changes I made to GPLed parts, then GPL is 
another fanatical crap.

And if GPL is really like that, it is in fact denying a freedom of 
choice. BSD like licences are the way to go.

All the ones I mentioned are LGPL and GCC and Linux are even worse: 
GPL. So if you don't want to use Boron because it's LGPL, you can't 
use all that other software, either

So my claim is not fanatical, the claim that Boron is unusable is

And please stop talking about GPL in this context. It has nothing 
to do with Boron

Sorry, Peter was wondering why people in the REBOL community didn't 
adopt Boron. Aside from REBOL being good enough, licensing was why. 
I have no reason to not use a *GPL product as a black box - it's 
looking at the source that can be a problem.

You're contradicting yourself

Not really. The main way that I learn a programming platform is to 
view the source, though on platforms where the source is not available 
(as for proprietary platforms like Delphi) or too complex to be of 
use (C++ compilers, office suites, most operating systems) then I 
try to go by the docs and experimentation. If I want to contribute, 
I need to see the source. However, if I learn anything by looking 
at the source, I have to be careful about how I apply that knowledge 
elsewhere if I might violate a license by doing so. So I use Linux, 
Java, OpenOffice and GCC like they are black boxes with no sources 
available, only because they are useful enough to be worth using 
without really learning from them. I wish I could contribute to Boron, 
but it might interfere with my ability to contribute to REBOL and 
Red. And I already have a good enough semi-black box in R3.

ah, I thought boron is GPL. I reacted to MAX's "if it wasn't GPL 
it might already have supplanted R3 years ago."

Yes, this distinction should be continued to be pushed

What would it take to change the license or Boron from LGPL (which 
has linking restrictions) to Classpath (which doesn't)?

Keep in mind that something like encapping is the closest that REBOL 
has to linking. Is there something like encapping for Boron?

Obvious: convince Karl

Boron is a library, so encapping would be writing your own host for 
it, so the LGPL library stays separate

Quite like R3

The library is always linked dynamically, as with R3 hostkit apps?

I suppose you could link statically, but you don't want that if you 
don't want to be LGPL compatible. Although you could do it if you 
distribute your object files for relinking

Does Boron have mezzanine code? Is it licensed differently?

As far as I know that's also LGPL