Don't you just wish Rev would do this?

[Richard Gaskin]

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