4 ms·

MIT license [edit: for v10]: https://github.com/AmziLS/apls/blob/master/license.txt https://github.com/AmziLS/apls/blob/master/license.txt [edit: for v9] Not t

MIT license [edit: for v10]: https://github.com/AmziLS/apls/blob/master/license.txt https://github.com/AmziLS/apls/blob/master/license.txt [edit: for v9] Not too sure how that fits with the restrictions in the download page, http://www.amzi.com/AmziPrologLogicServer/store.php http://www.amzi.com/AmziPrologLogicServer/store.php But I do get a small itch to try the http://www.amzi.com/AdventureInProlog/advtop.php http://www.amzi.com/AdventureInProlog/advtop.php """ Adventure in Prolog ™ — Prolog Tutorial A full tutorial for learning Prolog, using an interactive fiction game for it's basic example. In the course of the tutorial you will also build an expert system and a business application. """

mindcrime 11y ago
Not too sure how that fits with the restrictions in the download page Looks like a standard case of "the source is OSS and you can use it for free if you build from source, but if you want pre-built binaries, you have to buy them from us". That's basically what Red Hat does with RHEL... you can get the source and build yourself, or you can buy RHEL binaries from them (for the sake of argument, for the moment lets forget about support and indemnification and all the 'other' stuff buying a subscription gets you). Of course, one difference with RHEL is that there's a vibrant community of people who take the RHEL source and rebuild it and release things like CentOS. Presumably you could do the same kind of thing with the Amzi source, so long as you respect their trademarks and what-not.
nickmain 11y ago
I think the downloads are v9 which is still a commercial product. The very stable 9.x release of the software will remain as a supported commercial version.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  I hate to pick nits too much, but I kinda dislike when people use this kind of phrasing. "Open source" and "commercial" are not antonyms. Something can be both open source and commercial at the same time. RHEL is a good example. I mean, I get the point they're trying to make (I think) but I wish people would be a little more precise when talking about this topic.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    I agree. I posted an essay on Schneier's blog countering the false dilemma between open source and proprietary. I'm modifying next version to say "shared source" as "open source" has specific meanings. Yet, many needs can be met with shared-source, proprietary software that are thought to be OSS-only. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/05/friday_squid_bl_424.html#c6051639 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/05/friday_squid_...
    - cyphar 11y ago
      Proprietary and free software are a dichotomy. It's commercial and free software that's a false dichotomy. It doesn't matter if you can "see the source" if you don't have the four freedoms when using the software.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        You can have all of the key freedoms with the restriction that they're paid for. This continues development, maintenance, and support. I'm not speculating as there's software with source available developed through commercial licensing. So, "free as in Stallman" software might be a dichotomy with proprietary but not "free as in free enough for many people." That exists and can flourish further with right mix of organizations, charters, licenses and so on. Just little work in it.
        cyphar 11y ago
        > You can have all of the key freedoms with the restriction that they're paid for. None of the four essential freedoms mention price. I work for a free software company which sells that software. I don't know what you're referring to. I clearly said that "free and commercial software are a FALSE dichotomy" -- meaning that you can have commercial free software. > So, "free as in Stallman" software might be a dichotomy with proprietary but not "free as in free enough for many people." Again "free as in Stallman" doesn't have anything to do with whether you pay for the software (in fact, he used to sell copies of GNU Emacs for $100). Proprietary software is software that takes away your freedom to use, modify and distribute the software. You can pay for free software and you can pay for proprietary software. But you can't get proprietary software that respects your freedom. That is a dichotomy. Free doesn't refer to price it refers to freedom. Please stop spreading misinformation.
- B1FF_PSUVM 11y ago
  > the downloads are v9 Good catch, thanks. I did read that bit, and promptly overlooked it.

mindcrime 11y ago

Not too sure how that fits with the restrictions in the download page Looks like a standard case of "the source is OSS and you can use it for free if you build from source, but if you want pre-built binaries, you have to buy them from us". That's basically what Red Hat does with RHEL... you can get the source and build yourself, or you can buy RHEL binaries from them (for the sake of argument, for the moment lets forget about support and indemnification and all the 'other' stuff buying a subscription gets you). Of course, one difference with RHEL is that there's a vibrant community of people who take the RHEL source and rebuild it and release things like CentOS. Presumably you could do the same kind of thing with the Amzi source, so long as you respect their trademarks and what-not.

nickmain 11y ago

I think the downloads are v9 which is still a commercial product. The very stable 9.x release of the software will remain as a supported commercial version.

mindcrime 11y ago
I hate to pick nits too much, but I kinda dislike when people use this kind of phrasing. "Open source" and "commercial" are not antonyms. Something can be both open source and commercial at the same time. RHEL is a good example. I mean, I get the point they're trying to make (I think) but I wish people would be a little more precise when talking about this topic.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I agree. I posted an essay on Schneier's blog countering the false dilemma between open source and proprietary. I'm modifying next version to say "shared source" as "open source" has specific meanings. Yet, many needs can be met with shared-source, proprietary software that are thought to be OSS-only. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/05/friday_squid_bl_424.html#c6051639 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/05/friday_squid_...
  - cyphar 11y ago
    Proprietary and free software are a dichotomy. It's commercial and free software that's a false dichotomy. It doesn't matter if you can "see the source" if you don't have the four freedoms when using the software.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      You can have all of the key freedoms with the restriction that they're paid for. This continues development, maintenance, and support. I'm not speculating as there's software with source available developed through commercial licensing. So, "free as in Stallman" software might be a dichotomy with proprietary but not "free as in free enough for many people." That exists and can flourish further with right mix of organizations, charters, licenses and so on. Just little work in it.
      - cyphar 11y ago
        > You can have all of the key freedoms with the restriction that they're paid for. None of the four essential freedoms mention price. I work for a free software company which sells that software. I don't know what you're referring to. I clearly said that "free and commercial software are a FALSE dichotomy" -- meaning that you can have commercial free software. > So, "free as in Stallman" software might be a dichotomy with proprietary but not "free as in free enough for many people." Again "free as in Stallman" doesn't have anything to do with whether you pay for the software (in fact, he used to sell copies of GNU Emacs for $100). Proprietary software is software that takes away your freedom to use, modify and distribute the software. You can pay for free software and you can pay for proprietary software. But you can't get proprietary software that respects your freedom. That is a dichotomy. Free doesn't refer to price it refers to freedom. Please stop spreading misinformation.
B1FF_PSUVM 11y ago
> the downloads are v9 Good catch, thanks. I did read that bit, and promptly overlooked it.