Linked by Kaj-de-Vos on Mon 8th Nov 2010 22:37 UTC
Permalink for comment 449433
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-10
I think it would be a good idea, to ignore Rebol, till it will be really open source (GPL, BSD, MIT, or something like that). I must admit i don't know what license R3 has, but i guess it's still a quite restrictive one.
The license for REBOL 3 so far states:
- The core is closed and stays closed to exert maximum control of the language. There is going to be an escrow license available to make sources available to specific people/companies, in case REBOL Technologies goes belly up.
- The rest around the core is open sourced using the BSD/MIT license. This is the part that was also entirely closed in REBOL 2. Having this open, means that 3rd party users can port and are porting REBOL 3 to other OSes themselves. This also makes extensions possible, where you had to pay for these before.
I don't have a formal license text available.
Also I suspect that REBOL 3 will be a free (gratis) product, because everything you had to pay for in REBOL 2, can be done with extensions by a 3rd party in REBOL 3.
The SDK (so you can build closed executables) will likely cost money, but I'm not sure.
This gives an overview of what is open and closed:
http://www.rebol.com/rebol3/architecture.html
Edited 2010-11-10 12:19 UTC