Vanilla 0.6.3

Hi I managed to get Vanilla to version 0.6.3 ! I used the package available at www.vanillasite.at/ and used that as the basis. I hope I have taken the latest that was available :) new features: * openID login * simple Rich Text editing * snip titles can be changed * system snips and templates are protected from editing (only the webmaster can edit those) * tags! * subversion based version control Download from my website: http://www.sabufrancis.com/vanilla.zip Read more here: http://www.sabufrancis.com/vanilla Please take a look and let me know Regards Sabu Francis (P.S: I am still not getting emails back from rebol list. I am wondering what I should be doing ... So if you reply to the mailing list, I may miss it for a few days)

Excerpts from Sabu Francis's message of Sun Sep 28 19:46:18 +0200 2008:

> I managed to get Vanilla to version 0.6.3 ! I used the package > available at www.vanillasite.at/ and used that as the basis. I hope I > have taken the latest that was available :)

Hi I took a good look at the Academic Free License ver 2.0 under which the original Vanilla 0.6.2 was distributed. Clause 6 specifies the Attribution rights in case of derived works. I think I have catered to the points mentioned in the clause (e.g. I have retained the original copyright notice, made it it clear that this is a derived work, etc. both in the source code as well as on my site.) If the attributions are still not meeting the requirements of the original authors I will change them suitably. Unfortunately the clause does not specify anything on how to name a derived version. Ideally, I would not want to fork this modification into a different branch and if there is some way by which the changes made can be patched back into its development it would be nice. I am happy that this notice has made the original developers bring back discussions on Vanilla. It is a well thought out software and I believe its development should be continued. If the code contributed by me is not to be patched into the main development, then I would request the original authors to suitably modify their documentation/web-site on how they plan to accept future modifications; and maybe modify the license they are giving with the product to reflect that. I will then consider forking my modifications into another project if there is sufficient interest in my "fork" Clarifying the current 0.6.2 documentation on this matter will save future contributors from facing this issue. IMHO, to expect future modifications to be kept private to the modifier is unrealistic, especially when a project has not seen any public releases for the last few years. My reading on the open source movement is that in any open source development the main trunk of development will see additions of authors and there should not be any control of that process. If control is to be exercised, then I think the software should be developed under a non-open source license. You can correct me on this. Now if someone can point out how I should name this derived version, this issue of naming should be settled. If indeed the version number is not to be indicated, just calling it "Vanilla" may not be right in such circumstances because someone may mistake it as version 1.0 of Vanilla, which will be even more deceptive. So it is all very confusing to me. In the meantime, let this point of naming take its natural course. I would truly appreciate feedback on the working of the modified version of Vanilla. Regards Sabu Francis

I was under the impression that Vanilla had become abandonware ... so thanks for reviving some interest in this great bit of Rebol software. Naming should be the least of one's concerns :) Sabu, have you tested under Cheyenne? On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:58 AM, Sabu Francis <sabufrancis-rediffmail.com> wrote:

> In the meantime, let this point of naming take its natural course. I > would truly appreciate feedback on the working of the modified version > of Vanilla. > > Regards > Sabu Francis >