[REBOL] Re: Licensing, components ... Re: REBOL FAQ updated
From: rebologue:ya:hoo at: 17-Sep-2002 16:06
Carl R--
Thanks for your responses to my comments.
My take-away from your posts is:
1. You believe that OS-specific scripts will be fatal
(or highly detrimental) to REBOL.
2. You believe that RT should not offer an attractive
runtime license so that developers can distribute
OS-specific scripts.
I disagree on both accounts, but I acknowledge it's a
moot point. I think there are also a lot of grey areas
in the discussion. For example, where do we stand
regarding features that:
Change or vary (perhaps radically) based on the user
OS?
Fail silently
if your OS doesn't support it?
Use a workaround to support the feature across
platforms?
Expect other software (i.e. a browser) on the user's
system?
As I expressed previously, I think that all options
should be in the hands of developers. They already
have enough complexity to deal with and tend to flee
when they see puzzling restrictions and red tape.
So what happens when you want want to switch from
Windows to Mac to (Plan 9 ?) without losing apps? My
answer isn't going to please you. In the case that
your apps are OS-specific, the .1% of the market
audience (multi-platform-switching desktop users) with
this dilemma will need to find reblets that support
those 3 platforms. Fortunately REBOL makes
multi-platform dev more feasible than just about any
other tool.
I can't vote in favor of "100% cross-platform purity"
if it means constraining REBOL (licensing or
functionality) in ways that effectively limit the
kinds of apps developers are able to create. Or that
deter the volume of developers required to build a
healthy market for RT.
So I am against licensing policy that deters
developers from building the scripts they want. I
don't believe that OS-specific erases prospects for
the Reb. Lack of developers-- lack of customers,
that's something that darkens prospects.
In my view, RT's commercial success is by far the
largest factor in securing the future of the REBOL
platform. An extension of this is that REBOL needs to
be sufficiently popular in strategic markets
(commercial OSes) in order to achieve success.
I like the concept and practice of "multi-platform"--
it's one of the reasons I like REBOL. However, I put
it at a slightly lower priority than a successful,
growing vendor and platform.
When I talk coarsely about cross-platform support,
it's not because I disagree over the merits of PalmOS
, Novell, etc. It's because my inner business
marketing strategist warns me that, given finite
resources, all platforms are not equal (let alone
identical).
While I surmise the above is an unpopular viewpoint to
the REBOL supporters on this list, I hope it is
accepted as fair input.
Regards
Ed
