Hello Ed, Petr I completely agree with your POV and second your thoughts. Here are just some more ideas...
I'm not against Rebol's crossplatformity but this has nothing to do with possibility to interconnect Rebol with other APIs or launch other code from Rebol. It is up to developer which method want/need to use and it shouldn't be restricted in that way. Moreover, there are plenty of other crossplatform and free APIs and libraries so why not make them accessible from Rebol for free? I think this would be very usefull for the whole Rebol community. For example I want to make image viewer/converter/editor for more than 200 image formats. I also know that RT never enhance Rebol for such huge image format support(which is understandable). So I found free and multiplatform library API for such task. This library is free so every software which use this API should be also free. But I cannot make it because of the commercial licensing of the library interface. The only possibility is to buy Pro license, buy license for the commercial usage of the API and make only commercial software. But who buy my Rebol/Pro commercial software when he(she) can use such image converter/viewer for example in VB for free? I think the sound, library interface and external calls should be free by default in the Rebol/Core and Rebol/View. These features can only help Rebol to spread, be more visible and enhance the area of Rebol applications. Maybe considering to free the encryption routines would be a good marketing move: "Communication you do in rebol is secure by default!" I also agree that we need something like Rebol/View/Player for internet browsers which could be the nowadays non-pro Rebol/View just with added sound support (and in future with 3D engine as Carl metioned). There should be also some kind of interface for controlling the browser's DOM from such player in future. The possibility of embedding Rebol into browser would seriously endanger whole JS and Macromedia stuff and open wide market of embedded applications... regards, Cyphre ----- Original Message ----- From: "Petr Krenzelok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 8:27 AM Subject: [REBOL] Re: Licensing, components ... Re: REBOL FAQ updated > Ed O'Connor wrote: > > >While I surmise the above is an unpopular viewpoint to > >the REBOL supporters on this list, I hope it is > >accepted as fair input. > > > > > Ed, why unpopular? There were/are few RT-thinking supporters imo. It > used to be Elan (where is he nowadays?), sometimes Allen, Steve, and now > Carl. You point is 100% accurate in my eyes. It seems to me though, that > some folks here would better risk death of the platform, instead of > letting rebol being introduced into many other areas .... > > -pekr- > > >Regards > >Ed > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:06 AM Subject: [REBOL] Re: Licensing, components ... Re: REBOL FAQ updated > 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 > -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
