Calling all open source developers

[Richmond Mathewson]

David Bovill wrote:
> It is perfectly acceptible to release RevTalk code under the terms of the
> GPL, MIT or other licenses. This has been done before, and debated
> extensively over the years in other related platforms - even where the
> engine itself is closed.
>
> Purists, like to argue over the issue, and debates can get heated (and
> usually tedious). My personal point of view is that there is precedence here
> and a number of thriving communities have grown up by using open source and
> open content licenses in similar circumstances. As that is the purpose, I'll
> go with what works and is helpful with regard to community building, and
> stick to arguing the philosophy down the pub (which is a much more enjoyable
> place for those sort of debates).
>
> Building a practical and truely collaborative open source community around
> RevTalk is certainly helped if the "mothership" takes a clear and
> encouraging stance on these issues. I have long argued on this list and
> elsewhere that RunRev should adopt an explicit "open source strategy" to
> encourage proper collaboration between developers on a clear and firm legal
> basis. This does not mean open sourcing their engine, but it does mean
> taking the small steps needed to support and encourage community efforts in
> this area. Releasing the documentation under an open content (Creative
> Commons) license would be symbolic and help. Explicitly releasing the code
> in the IDE under an MIT or other open source license, and encouraging
> integration with other similarly licensed IDEs (like MC IDE) would also
> help.
>
> As far as I can gather from talking to Kevin, Mark and the other folks at
> RunRev - they have nothing against these moves which I found encouraging. As
> far as I can tell it is simply that none of the developers there have
> experience of working on open source projects, and the use of open licenses,
> and as such they are not quite sure as to how they would support / engage
> with such and effort given their limited resources.
>
> I proposed to Kevin and a number of developers at RunRev Live, that maybe we
> can move this area forwards by creating a community led project with an
> explicit remit to develop open source code libraries and widgets in RevTalk.
> This would be an arms length legal entity, with RunRev or any other
> interested party able to join as a full member and have a say with regard to
> the projects direction.
>
> Based on the positive feedback to these ideas from the conference, I've
> decided to put what time I have into taking this forwards with the aim of
> launching it in time for the RunRev November launch. 
Sorry, but, frankly, the only thing that excited me about your message was

"November launch";  it is funny how information is leaked out to the 
proletariat . . .  :)
> The organisation would
> be not-for-profit, in that any money derived from activities such as
> commercial closed source dual licensing of code libraries would go back into
> the pool to pay developers to work on open source libraries. I've discussed
> this proposal with a number of funders here in the UK and it seems
> encouraging to apply for some grants to develop this community as well.
>
> Any individual developer or company is fully entitled to join, and the
> organisation will have an open membership. The aim is simple to define
> collectively what tools and resources the community would like to develop as
> open source code and resource these efforts. The secondary aim is to engage
> with other open source and open content communities, building on the
> strengths and accessibility of the language to be immediately understandable
> to any programmer, and encourage interoperability between RevTalk and other
> open source frameworks.
>
> My personal interest in the project is in the legal and community side, and
> I want to combine this with my passion for RevTalk to pilot a truly
> innovative collaborative community, not just based around code, but also
> open media content as well. While the Revolution engine is not open, the
> accessibility of the language, the free version of the IDE in RevMedia, and
> it's ability to appeal to designers and non-developers interested in media,
> place it in a strong position to serve as a foundation for a rich "open
> content" community.
>
> I'm hopeful that other developers will share these goals, and that we can
> work together to support the wider adoption of the language and the creation
> of higher quality open code and media resources for the community.
>
> If there is anyone who would like to discuss the funding proposals, or join
> either as a full legal partner, or as an informal associate partner maybe we
> can start a discussion off list? From previous experience I'd say that this
> list is best kept to discussions regarding code, and the use of Revolution -
> I'm breaking this rule here just as a heads-up and invitation to those
> interested in this area to help co-design this initiative :)
> _______________________________________________
>
>