Re: SWI-Prolog is open source

On 12/04/2013 03:55 PM, Michael Ben Yosef wrote:
> Hi Paulo,
>
> On 4 December 2013 16:01, Paulo Moura <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Open source forks are often a waste of developers resources (on both sides), even when done honestly (including complying fully with the original license). But, in this particular case, why would anyone consider forking SWI-Prolog because of the V7 changes instead of actively testing and contributing to keep the "--traditional" command-line option running smoothly?
>>
>> [...]
>
> Well, firstly, I should be clear that I have no intention of forking
> SWI-Prolog, as if anyone was worried. :-) I just wanted to mention
> that doing so is not as clear-cut as it might seem. (But Jan has
> clarified his view.)
>
> I agree with you (and Derek) about keeping "--traditional" bug-free.
> But the deeper issue is that, as Jan has made clear, new developments
> such as new libraries will be built on the "non --traditional" side of

True. In particular the XML, JSON and HTTP libraries will start
supporting strings, dicts and functions on them. For some libraries,
this will work nicely both in V7 and traditional mode. In other cases, I
expect to develop new libraries that will rely on V7. The old libraries
will be poorly maintained and probably no longer evolve, unless someone
relying on them maintains them actively.

> V7. People who don't embrace the new changes won't be stuck without
> Jan's past efforts, but they will fail to benefit from his future
> ones, which is a shame. Paul Singleton put it eloquently when he said
> he was "*seriously* spooked to be sidelined into a --traditional
> mode."

I hope Paul and I (or whoever wants to contribute) will be able to get
JPL in sync with V7.  My Java experience is too limited for proposing a
clean way out.

	Cheers --- Jan