World: r4wp

http://www.rebol.com/article/0243.html

This is in order for big companies to not capitalise on REBOL?

Thanks, I will put your link to the comments for him to see his own 
words ;-)

Ah, you already did so, thanks ...

yep :)

Wish you hadn't! lol

He's been under a lot of stress .. no need to stress him more!

My recollection is that GPL programming languages do not affect programs 
written in them

how is that? I thought that having GPL licence means - any app statically 
linked has to release its source code - pretty limiting ...

A lot of commercial software is under GPL, you have only to realase 
the source.

GPL means "free speech" not "free beer"!

 Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you 
 should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that 
 you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the 
 cost. This is a misunderstanding.


Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge 
as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please 
read on.


The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer 
either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, 
we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, 
not “free beer”.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run 
the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with 
or without changes.


Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for 
a substantial price. Often the same program is available in both 
ways from different places. The program is free regardless of the 
price, because users have freedom in using it.


Nonfree programs are usually sold for a high price, but sometimes 
a store will give you a copy at no charge. That doesn't make it free 
software, though. Price or no price, the program is nonfree because 
users don't have freedom.


Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price doesn't 
make the software free, or even closer to free. So if you are redistributing 
copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee 
and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate 
activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.


Free software is a community project, and everyone who depends on 
it ought to look for ways to contribute to building the community. 
For a distributor, the way to do this is to give a part of the profit 
to free software development projects or to the Free Software Foundation. 
This way you can advance the world of free software.


Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. 
Don't waste it!


In order to contribute funds, you need to have some extra. If you 
charge too low a fee, you won't have anything to spare to support 
development

However, when people think of “selling software”, they usually imagine 
doing it the way most companies do it: making the software proprietary 
rather than free.


So unless you're going to draw distinctions carefully, the way this 
article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term “selling 
software” and choose some other wording instead. For example, you 
could say “distributing free software for a fee”—that is unambiguous.

IIRC in GPL2  you don't need to release your code, you can link your 
code to gpl2 libs keeping it closed. Am I correct ?

Anyway I think that Carl will go in that direction choosing the rebol 
license (well, hope so)

I don't think in general licence of a language (tool to make a product) 
affects licence of product (or libraries), unless the product is 
the langauge/vm..? but IANAL

This is another way:

you have some libraries open and some closed. So if you don't chaneg 
the open, you don't need to show the closed.

Another Rebol example wuold be: 
Rebol.exe is open source
You script is colsed source.

If you improver rebol.exe, you public your changes. If you modifiy 
your closed script, you haven't to show anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_programming_languages
there are many w/ GPL

WOW I'm very excited of this announce!

Janko, it seems there are many of the same languages that exist both 
in BSD/GPL versions.

MaxV, there is of course also the issue of encapping.

MaxV: I don't care about the price, I don't care about the redistribution. 
The only thing I care about is, if writing an app using GPL REBOL 
has an obligation to release ALL app sources. If that's true, then 
please take that sfuff away from me ...

Henrik - encapping - exactly what I had in my mind - having pekr.exe, 
containing REBOL GPL2 core - do I need to release all sources, or 
only eventually changed REBOL Core ones?

I wonder if the GPL won't clash with the BSD mezz code Brian wrote 
for R3?

Hmm, even Shadwolf is positive to the news ... well ... kind of :-)

I'm a fan of GPL, it keeps people on their toes.  But, I'm also a 
fan of LGPL for runtime so those same people can make food money 
when they feel the need.

I don't see any problem: rebol is an iterpreter, so if you don't 
modify it, you haven't to release anything.

If you use a modified version of Rebol, you must show your Rebol 
source. Where is the problem?

JAVA is open source, but a lot of sotware use Java and are closed 
source. Java is just an interpreter.

MaxV: the problem (as how I understand GPL so far) is, that once 
you Encap REBOL Core along with your app (you create one executable), 
all source code has to be provided, including your app, which might 
mean a busines logic, etc. In that regard (and if I am right about 
the GPL), the licence is unacceptable for me - why should anyone 
care about what my app is doing. In that regards, LGPL allows you 
to at least link GPL libraries dynamically.

In my humble opinion, you see things from the wrong point of view. 
What source is released?  Rebol intepreter

Do you modify it? No, you just put the intepreter and you software 
in the same container (zip, encapper, etc.)
So you don't need to make your software open source.

Well, it is possible that I don't understand correctly GPL obligations. 
But from what I have learnt in the past, I was told (or I incorrectly 
understand the licence), that once your application link any GPL 
code, it has to be fully open sourced. So - when you encap rebol 
interepreter and create an executable called my-app.exe, all my-app.exe 
sources have to be open sourced. And if so, the licence is something 
I am not willing to accept ...

If I made a "opensource car ", you wouldn't have to publish your 
routes or way of driving .

If you modified the "open source car", you would hate to publish 
your mods to the car.
Don't confuse vehicle with driver!

Thi is easy with inepreted language (like Rebol), on the contrary 
with compiled language the diffenrce is a little more obscure.

This is easy with intrepreted language (like Rebol), on the contrary 
with compiled language the diffenrce is a little more obscure.

If you made a race game, probably you would not modify rebol intepreter. 
So you can protect your work and eventually claim if someone copied 
your work.

On the other hand, if you notice some bug in rebol, you can correct 
it and publish your correction; this way all the community will take 
the advantage of your work.

That is how I don't understand what GPL is about.

MaxV, unfortunately your idealised wishes don't match up with the 
GPL and the understanding and intention of the FSF of the GPL.

when you encap your app with rebol you are just making something 
like packaged version of app (that includes a rebol runtime), you 
are not releasing new rebol.

This whole issue has seen a wealth of debate in the past:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#Linking_and_derived_works

The problem is only with compiled softwares. If you don't bellieve 
in me, looks at Java. Nobody has problem selling java software. Java 
intepreter is opensource, but your code not.

If I make a picture, and you need glasses to see it, I don't have 
to give the same license of the glasses to the picture.

Most compiled languages chose a more permissive license for their 
runtimes, precisely to avoid this issue.

From Wikipedia:


Therefore, software distributed under the terms of GPLv1 could be 
combined with software under more permissive terms, as this would 
not change the terms under which the whole could be distributed, 
but software distributed under GPLv1 could not be combined with software 
distributed under a more restrictive license, as this would conflict 
with the requirement that the whole be distributable under the terms 
of GPLv1.


So it means - you can't have statically linked GPL and closed source, 
you simply have to release everything. Now the only thing you can 
do is to argue, that REBOL encap process is not a link, just a packaging 
of REBOL interepreter together with your script, but not sure, it 
would be an acceptable excuse :-)

There are also differences between GPL1,2 and 3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

The problem with REBOL is not with the "interpreter" (neither is 
it with Java), but with the libraries.

GPL says:  Ambiguity arises with regards to using GPL libraries, 
and bundling GPL software into a larger package (perhaps mixed into 
a binary via static linking). This is ultimately a question not of 
the GPL per se.

Andreas of wich libraries you are talking?

Andreas - even if you link libraries dynamically? Well, maybe so, 
because that's why LGPL exists? You can use the code in the form 
of dynamically loadable library, but not statically?

Rebol is released as a single executable, so I don't see any problem

The FSF claims that even if you link dynamically to a GPL'd library, 
the result is a derivative work and therefore needs to be GPL'd.