On 22 Nov 2005, at 21:26, Marielle Lange wrote:
David Bovill wrote:
Government contracts do not require that all tools and code used
is open source (I think this would not even be legal).
Unfortunately, this is not clear. I have been in discussion with
the guys of this project:
On 21 Nov 2005, at 21:50, Richard Gaskin wrote:
But the bottom line for us Rev developers is that if a customer
requires a truly open source solution then the source must be open
-- that's not the case with Rev, Windows, or OS X, so it rules out
solutions dependent on any of those
On 21 Nov 2005, at 22:03, Mathewson wrote:
I believe that it would, ultimately, be in RR's interest to
release a FREE (as in totally free) version of RR for Linux
- possibly modified from current Linux RR versions so that
it cannot be used to manufacture standalones for commercial
platforms.
Quoting David Bovill [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 21 Nov 2005, at 22:03, Mathewson wrote:
I believe that it would, ultimately, be in RR's interest to
release a FREE (as in totally free) version of RR for Linux
- possibly modified from current Linux RR versions so that
it cannot be used to
On 22 Nov 2005, at 16:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
xara
http://www.xara.com/ ?
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
On 21 Nov 2005, at 21:38, Richard Gaskin wrote:
But in terms of contracting with governments which require open
source software, I think that leaves us out even if our part of a
solution is open source since we, like Flash, Director, Toolbook,
and xCode developers, rely on proprietary
Linux support is not about how many desktops you can sell
applications to - it is about the quality of developers you can
attract, and the ability to deliver intranet, and government
contracts (at least here in Europe) which specify support for open
platforms. It is also about being able
On Nov 21, 2005, at 9:21 AM, David Bovill wrote:
Linux support is not about how many desktops you can sell
applications to - it is about the quality of developers you can
attract, and the ability to deliver intranet, and government
contracts (at least here in Europe) which specify support
Charles Hartman wrote:
Maybe only 1-2% of your typical desktop customers will be using linux
- but I personally would not be using Revolution without good Linux
support for the reasons above.
And the Brazilian government's policy is worth keeping in mind, and
watching as a plausible
On 21 Nov 2005, at 16:56, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Charles Hartman wrote:
Maybe only 1-2% of your typical desktop customers will be using
linux - but I personally would not be using Revolution without
good Linux support for the reasons above.
And the Brazilian government's policy is
David Bovill wrote:
Linux support is not about how many desktops you can sell
applications to - it is about the quality of developers
you can attract
I could write apps for the Pope, but if he won't give me something in
return it'll be just as hard for me to pay my rent as writing for
David Bovill wrote:
On 21 Nov 2005, at 16:56, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Charles Hartman wrote:
Maybe only 1-2% of your typical desktop customers will be using
linux - but I personally would not be using Revolution without
good Linux support for the reasons above.
And the Brazilian
On 21 Nov 2005, at 17:16, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Depends on the license requirements, doesn't it? That is, even if
I inherit enough wealth to be able to afford the luxury of working
for free, at the end of the day the RunRev engine isn't open source
so it's not possible for me to deliver
Now, maybe I'm wrong, but . . .
I believe that it is perfectly legal to download the
Metacard IDE, download a copy of DC/RR, and then transfer
the RR engine across to the Metacard IDE.
I also know that DC/RR is a commercial product.
However, I also know that Novell have some sort of
agreement
On 21 Nov 2005, at 17:49, Mathewson wrote:
What might be rather a good idea is if people in the know
(i.e. Richard Gaskin, RR staff members, or the people
involved in the MC IDE development) made an explicit
statement as to what is FREE (as in totally and utterly
free), what is SEMI-FREE (Um ?)
On Nov 21, 2005, at 2:13 PM, David Bovill wrote:
Basically they insist on open source solutions for Government
contracts - also very big supporters of open content (Creative
Commons) with Gliberto Gil (Minister of Culture and renowned
musician) being largely responsible for getting
Hoping you would reply :)
On 21 Nov 2005, at 18:00, Andre Garzia wrote:
That's what happens when goverment decides to migrate itself to
linux without thinking that in the Real world, people might need
proprietary platforms, the zealots excuse is: if we all move,
we'll create momentum to
Mathewson wrote:
Now, maybe I'm wrong, but . . .
I believe that it is perfectly legal to download the
Metacard IDE, download a copy of DC/RR, and then transfer
the RR engine across to the Metacard IDE.
Correct. However, note that since your copy of the IDE won't be
licensed, all your scripts
My wife is Bulgarian, her father was ina Communist prison
camp . . .
Oh, Dear, Richmond gets personal again!
Yes, he does . . .
I would like to take issue with Senor Garzia:
(and, I suppose this all comes down to politics)
I am not a socialist, and not a communist, and not a
supporter of
On 21 Nov 2005, at 19:20, J. Landman Gay wrote:
Mathewson wrote:
Now, maybe I'm wrong, but . . .
I believe that it is perfectly legal to download the
Metacard IDE, download a copy of DC/RR, and then transfer
the RR engine across to the Metacard IDE.
Correct. However, note that since your
I assume that in DreamCard I can write an OSI-certifiable thingie
that is a DM stack, with StackRunner bundled with it.
Charles Hartman
On Nov 21, 2005, at 1:20 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
Mathewson wrote:
Now, maybe I'm wrong, but . . .
I believe that it is perfectly legal to download the
On 21 Nov 2005, at 19:19, Mathewson wrote:
My wife is Bulgarian, her father was ina Communist prison
camp . . .
Goli Otok?
Earliert his year I went to Sofia (Capital of Bulgaria) and
listened to Richard Stallman, and reached the follwoing
conclusions:
1. He is a long-haired hippy rather
Mathewson wrote:
What might be rather a good idea is if people in the know
(i.e. Richard Gaskin, RR staff members, or the people
involved in the MC IDE development) made an explicit
statement as to what is FREE (as in totally and utterly
free), what is SEMI-FREE (Um ?) and what is COMMERCIAL (as
Richard
I know you know this, but just to keep the conversation clear, open
source doesn't mean free of charge. Not on any level.
A lot of open source software is available for free. Some isn't
(MySQL comes to mind immediately). But lots and lots of programmers
make lots and lots of
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:00:01, Andre Garzia wrote:
I think I must step in since I am the only Brazilian in the list.
You may be the only true Brazilian on the list, but hopefully I might
pass as an imitation! After 30 years in Brazil they make you Brazilian
whether you like it or not - which is
Dan Shafer wrote:
Richard
I know you know this, but just to keep the conversation clear, open
source doesn't mean free of charge. Not on any level.
As Richard Stallman patiently explained it over dinner in Chinatown to
me once, there's free as in gratis and free as in freedom, and
David Bovill wrote:
On 21 Nov 2005, at 19:20, J. Landman Gay wrote:
Mathewson wrote:
Now, maybe I'm wrong, but . . .
I believe that it is perfectly legal to download the
Metacard IDE, download a copy of DC/RR, and then transfer
the RR engine across to the Metacard IDE.
Correct. However,
David Bovill wrote:
On 21 Nov 2005, at 17:16, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Depends on the license requirements, doesn't it? That is, even if I
inherit enough wealth to be able to afford the luxury of working for
free, at the end of the day the RunRev engine isn't open source so
it's not
Bob Warren's description of the Brazilian situation almost
exactly mirrors that of Bulgaria:
Pirate Windows everywhere: not because Bulgarians are
crooks or lack morals (well, there are a few dubious
characters lurking here and there; mainly in the
government), but shear necessity caused by the
Mathewson wrote:
PCs running FREE (as in, you only pay
the IT-bloke to install the stuff) software flattens the
playing field quite effectively.
A usable installer would level the playing field even more.
--
Richard Gaskin
Managing Editor, revJournal
I never claimed that partially-open projects could not be
made with Rev.
All I said is that if a purchaser requires a FULLY OPEN
solution, by definition that cannot include Rev (or for that
matter Windows, OS X, or any other non-open parts).
Partially-open solutions are a separate
I, once upon a time, lived with a woman for a number of
years - and we never quite got round to committing
ourselves: and, surprise, surprise, we parted ways because
we never really learnt to work together.
Now I am married and everything is much smoother; even, if
one wants to bite near the
Richmond.
On Nov 18, 2005, at 7:01 AM, Mathewson wrote:
Maybe it is time for RR/MC to contain an in-built media
player that 'travels with it' and standalones ? ? ?
I'm not at all sure I agree, even though the *outcome* you depict is
desirable.
There are standards for media. I'd
Mathewson wrote:
However, owing to problems associated with the Linux
version of RR (mainly with handling media files), I can see
a parting of the ways in my crystal ball if RR doesn't make
the great leap (well, its not going to be Linux - being the
amorphous 'thing' that it is).
I don't know
34 matches
Mail list logo
