2006/2/1, Nicolas Cannasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Mark Winterhalder wrote:
>>As for the compiler, we don't have anything to announce at this time and
>>I am not sure if we want to do this, but I'd be interested in practical
>>suggestions from this list. Why should we do this? How would you use it?
>>How important is it--not just to be open source for the sake of it, but
>>actually for getting your work--whatever that is--accomplished? There
>>are many licenses and approaches folks take, which ones do you think
>>would make sense here?
>
>
> To turn the question around, why wouldn't you?
[...]
Mark did sum up the way I was seeing that too.
If you CAN open source the compiler, you SHOULD do it.
This will send a clear and hearable signal to the developpers community
and is cheaper than any add campaign. Such news would make the headlines
and bend the image of Adobe to bring it into the small world of
companies supporting OpenSource (I know there is some OS at Adobe, but a
Flash compiler is something huge). Coolness Factor and Hype are
important things when users are choosing a development platform. See
what's happening on every Google move.
At the same time, some small and medium companies will invest
significant resources in understanding and modifying the compiler to add
features needed by some niche users, creating an healthy ecosystem of
3rd party tools. Look at Java and the things some libraries are doing by
generating bytecode from a given class definition. There is a wide range
of possible usages for such a technology.
Best,
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
--
::| Carlos Rovira
::| http://www.carlosrovira.com
_______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
