[REBOL] Re: oss revisited (briefly!)
From: tim:johnsons-web at: 10-Feb-2004 8:13
* "Robert M. M=FCnch" <[robert--muench--robertmuench--de]> [040210 03:20]:
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:36:10 -0900, Tim Johnson <[tim--johnsons-web--com]>
> > It is not just possible, but is probable, that a 'tipping point'
> > will be reached that will cause a sharp spike in increased linux
> > use. If there is not an 'open source' rebol, rebol will lose out.
> Hi, I never undestand what the problem is? What's the problem with Rebol
> not being open-source? It doesn't cost hundred-of-thousands of $s to use.
> So if you are doing things that will create revenue, you can afford a
> license, if not use the free interpreter.
> If we would talk about Oracle database systems here, I would agree to do
> But, all those open-source demagogues, if you can show-up with a
> business-model that let RT make some money from their work, I will be
> quite but otherwise it's just a techie POV with no business know-how
> behind it.
> And, BTW: Those not caring about Rebol because not being open-source have
> a problem ;-)
> > Note: this is my opinion, and I don't wish to be involved in
> > or initiate an 'OS war'.
> Well, why not? If someone can tell me a really benefit Rebol being
> open-source I might change my POV. Sorry, if this sound a bit harsh here,
> but only moaning without showing a solution is not that professional.
By now you've probably read my thoughts about 'open architecture' as
a opposed to 'open source'. And I'm personally not a real 'open source'
fanatic. I'm more interested in resources than source code.
In fact, as a long-time C programmer, I'm afraid that if I saw any
of Carl's code, it would just make me feel stoopid. :-)
Tim Johnson <[tim--johnsons-web--com]>