Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

[REBOL] Re: Rebol SDK vs Command

From: edoconnor:gmai:l at: 17-Sep-2007 11:59

Open source Rebol is an interesting discussion, and one which can generate a lot of opinions, but I think it's endlessly moot until Carl S. decides he wants to take Rebol in that direction. I'm willing to bet he's looked at this issue from many conceivable angles and decided to go with a hybrid model. Great! Hopefully that will generate some renewed developer interest in R3. So, setting aside the fact that this matter is out of our hands... I think the main benefit of FOSS is that the developer receives a degree of protection from of a corporate vendor. Software developers do not want an external entity automatically inserted into their livelihood as co-partner and co-captain of their destiny. It would be irrational to accept such an arrangement when there are dozens of highly capable languages with completely open or very liberal licenses. (Would RT use a closed, proprietary language to code R3? No way!!) With regard to the confusion of multiple R3s in the marketplace, I expect any reasonable license to dictate that the fork/offshoot cannot be named Rebol, R3 or any other trademark/servicemark/copyright of RT. For example, if I create my own .exe using the SDK, I cannot legally publish it on Tucows.com listed as Rebol/Turbo. In my opinion, there is hardly a more effective way to limit the number of potential developers than to keep the foundation of R3 closed. It simply makes the R3 proposition a non-starter for much of the developer community RT hopes to attract. I would like to see R3 gain some developer cred, so I sure hope I'm mistaken about all of this. Ed