Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux

[David Bovill]

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 truly open materials which  
> rely on it.

Hey i thought you had made it in the land of plenty :) More seriously  
this is not all-or-nothing. It is entirely possible to deliver open  
source solutions in Rev (what is the license for the Metacard IDE  
again?).

Also it is possible to have mixed strategies based on open file  
formats - so you can both release all the Rev code under an  
appropriate OSI certified open license and allow full  
interoperability with other open source code.

The issue here is not that it is "not possible" to do this, but that  
in order to win these arguments in these contract negotiations it  
would really help if RunRev had a decent open source strategy that  
they marketed - this should be built upon Revolutions strengths in  
*nix platform as a rapid application development tool.

Saying that this is not possible is not only untrue but damaging (for  
some of us at least).


> On 21 Nov 2005, at 17:19, Richard Gaskin wrote:

> OIC.  Thanks.  Thought it was somehow different from the Indian or  
> European policies.  Seems pretty much in line generally speaking,  
> and since we use a proprietary engine here they all exclude us.

NO IT DOES NOT!