World: r4wp

ok, just like in REBOL of course. Still it looks strange because 
I expect it to be there because there always is in other languages 
and it is a loop until a condition is met. So somewhere that condition 
must be tested to be true or false but indeed this part is more the 
definition of how the statement as a whole should be formatted in 
a Red program. I'm back on track, thanks!

cryptography: maybe I can handle ROT13. :-)

Marco, maybe you could do a syntax coloring scheme for one of the 
popular editors out there

I guess this would be more straighforward for Red/System as opposed 
to Red because of the more limited syntax. I would think a regex 
based approach would work for that

might be worth starting with a TextMate bundle for REBOL and simplifying 
that, for Red/System

I can live without the line numbers, even in a R2 like error handling 
:) A lot of programming errors are development related and should 
never happen again once correct datatypes are passed on between functions 
so after this is done no further need for extra debugging statements 
here. User input is always wrong, they give wrong data and should 
be punished hard for that (Oh no that's Googles point of view) but 
the point is it should be tested to be what it should be and in that 
 way REBOL errors should rarely be reported by users. (just my 2cents)

Red needs a "Red programming language Pocket Reference" (O'Reilly 
book) before the world dominance can set in.

OpenSSH is BSD http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/ssh/LICENCE?rev=HEAD

Unfortunately, with the advertising clause

The underlying OpenSSL, that is

what are the restrictions if you read the code and port it to another 
language without running any of the original code with the exception 
of test suites?

Running makes no difference, but if you really port the code, you're 
entering a gray area in which I would guess the copyright could still 
apply to some extent

There would have to be a complete specification somewhere that could 
be used for implementation.

Not sure what you mean by advertising clause ... there are Amiga 
bsd ports http://linuxmafia.com/ssh/amiga.html

Henrik, yes, Graham's link says that all the information is available. 
But then you're looking at complete reimplementations of a whole 
software suit that's extremely security critical

Advertising clause doesn't prevent porting. It just obligates you 
to advertise the author

One could always ask the original implementors.

Their stance is clear. The whole world has already complained, so 
this is what you get

Steve has already done the Amiga port

Does it matter if their names appear in the source header?

Whose names

?

 It just obligates you to advertise the author

http://openssl.org/source/license.html

3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
 *    software must display the following acknowledgment:

 *    "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
 *    for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)"

well, it's not the same software, but I couldn't care less, if we 
had to credit Elmer Fudd, just as long as we have something that 
works.

I don't think that all future Red users will be pleased to have to 
provide a long list of advertisement with all their apps, just because 
Red uses 3rd-party libs underneath.

Henrik: something that works. I don't know what you want to use SSL/SSH 
for, but Red/System has a cURL binding. cURL usually uses OpenSSL 
and does most things you would want to do with SSL and SSH

Kaj - the last thing I want is to have to distribute Curl with each 
Red script. How big is the Curl library? Even tens of KB is too much 
.....

cURL is included in almost all open source based operating systems, 
including OS X

If your software advertises the use of SSL, then you need to mention 
authorship.  If you don't advertise, you don't need to mention it.

If you say your software is safe, that would already trigger it

Better credit Elmer Fudd than *Bugs* Bunny :)

Kaj, ok... why is it always licensing that stops good development...

I don't understand following syntax - is that just a word? 

s: GET_BUFFER(data)

That is the same reason why we adopted BSL for Red/System runtime 
code instead of BSD-3.

does not look like a rebol syntax :-)

Still, it is valid REBOL syntax. ;-)

Well, Rebol/Red headers are extensible. Is that really a problem 
to have a 'credit or 'licence field, and mention authors of particular 
components?

You have to make it visible to end users.

Then I am dumb - R2 does not allow being it a word, nor is it a function 
... so, what's that? Well, some tests, uh, surprised :-)

>> GET_BUFFER: [1 2 3 4 5]
== [1 2 3 4 5]
>> GET_BUFFER: [1 2 3 4 5](escape)
>> data: 4
== 4
>> GET_BUFFER(data)
== 4
>> GET_BUFFER/:data
== 4

As for end user visibility, I can imagine one common place to have 
it - Menu/About dialog, credits section. But, what about apps without 
the GUI, right?

It can be a CREDITS file distributed with your app.

>> [GET_BUFFER(data)]
== [GET_BUFFER (data)]

;-)

that's weird, imo REBOL should not allow that at all - confusing 
...

it's not different than [][][] vs. [] [] []

I bet Carl done it specifically to allow such syntactic construction 
for dialects without having to drop down to string! preprocessing.

...or maybe it's just an auto-corrective feature of LOAD that comes 
handy for dialects. ;-)

I've chosen that syntax to visually distinguish simple defines from 
macro with parameters. But you can write it with a space in between 
if you want, no problem.

So, in the context of Red/System, it's less confusing that way.