David Bovill wrote:
On 05/06/07, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com> wrote:
But I don't think open source is likely in the foreseeable future.
RunRev Ltd. and their backers have a lot invested in Rev, and any path
to the future would need to provide a healthy return on that investment.
Why would you say Adobe are open sourcing Flex? because they don't see the
product going anywhere and they are cutting their losses? Because they are
big enough and can loose on this one? Or because they figure they can only
really make money off a development tool and platform (in the future) if it
has serious open source credentials and they are reorganising their business
bit by bit around ways of seeling tools and services around such a strategy?
Maybe some mix of all of the above. Hard to say. The "Why" was the one
thing curiously absent from their FAQ.
For RunRev to open source Rev would be the equivalent of Adobe open
sourcing their whole Creative Suite. But like RunRev, the main income
sources for Adobe remain proprietary.
But aside from being free/gratis, are there other specific benefits
you'd look forward to if it became open source?
It is nothing to do with the cost - at least for me. I want to be able to
recommend the platform to customers and I want to be able to engage bright
young developers in learning the language and RunRev tools / IDE. Both are
much much harder in my environment with a pure closed source solution - and
it is getting harder.
Are these young minds concerned about cost, or do they need to modify
the C++ source?
--
Richard Gaskin
Managing Editor, revJournal
_______________________________________________________
Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
