open source (Richard Gaskin)

[Sadhunathan Nadesan]

| | > As Scott said the MC IDE is now open source so you can continue to 
| | > maintain
| | > an engine license and use the MC IDE instead of Rev. It's up to you if 
| | > you
| | > want to switch or not but it seems that all development will go into 
| | > the
| | > engine and the Rev IDE.



Ok, this is the part I find confusing - people referring to these products as
if they had 2 parts.  IDE and engine.

I propose it should be 3 or more parts.  Take for example, data base calls.

>From the point of view of a developer, these fuctions are used in their code
the same way they would use any fuunction from the core engine.  Correct?  Yet,
apparently, they are not part of the core engine, but some kind of library layer
on top of the engine.  Is that true?  How would a developer know they are not
part of the core engine (without some kind of comparision, or technical diagram
of the architecture, or ....).   These are some kind of core engine extensions,
I suppose.  I would not think of them as part of the IDE, they are not visual,
and they are mixed in with the list of core engine functions.  They seem more
like core engine objects than IDE objects, to me anyway.

So do we really have 3 parts as in

1. core MC engine		not open source
2. engine extensions		not open source
3. MC IDE			open source
4. RR IDE			not open source


And how do you distinguish 1 from 2?