[REBOL] Re: oss revisited (briefly!)
From: SunandaDH:aol at: 10-Feb-2004 4:09
> Frankly, I'd rather buy a QA'd, tested, polished REBOL "distribution"
> that packages core and (contributed) modules than anything that's
> currently on offer, or a quarterly subscription to such a distribution
> or whatever.
That's the approach that has made Redhat and others commercial
successes in a world that gives away software. Much the same
model could apply to REBOL too.
> No, open source means the source is open. It doesn't
> need to be any more complicated than this.
I was basing my observation that it is a marketing strategy
on the Open Source Initiative's home page where they say:
Open Source Initiative exists to make this case to the
Their definition is also a little more convoluted:
But they are trying to distinguish themselves from Free
Software -- which many would argue is an Even Better Thing:
> I'm not trying to be argumentative (really!). Tim is right,
> though, if you have to think of only one good thing
> about oss, think more resources.
I completely agree with both of you, and Tim's example about
the /binary bug is a good example of how long it can take to
fix things when the resources are limited -- and, also, the
resources have other priorities
I get the impression (I may be wrong) from the interactions
on Altme REBOL-View that Carl is now the *only* developer
If so, he may now have the freedom, and perhaps the
necessity, (if not the time) to think about a different
about a different development strategy for REBOL.
And, if so, he'd find a lot of enthusiasm from people on
this list for sight of the source in exchange for bug
fixes, enhancements and optimisations.
That could be a step towards open source,