On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:10:07PM +0900, [email protected] wrote:
Great Idea. Why care about licenses at all, when we can just
reimplement everything we need?
One of the problems I have with the GPL is that it
reduces the ability of a reimplimentation under another license to
“catch on”, in large part thanks to the fame imparted on it by the
successes of some software projects that bear the GPL.
So the problem you have with the GPL is that GPL projects usually work
very well? I see your point…
Thank you for your sarcasm, and for completely ignoring the actual
problems I have with the GPL in favor of sniping and ridicule.
On 15 Mrz., 19:08, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
the same stuff
very well? I see your point…
Thank you for your sarcasm, and for completely ignoring the actual
problems I have with the GPL in favor of sniping and ridicule.
Forgive me my sarcasm, but I just think that your arguments against
the GPL are mostly FUD. The “can I redistribute a binary if I have
lost the source” scenario is far-fetched, you vastly overstate the
cost of providing source code, and you just refuse to accept the fact
that the GPL works insofar that it forces companies to reveal the
source code of products they would otherwise not reveal, which
ultimately benefits the end user.
I’m not a GPL “fan”, in fact I have never used in any of my projects
(mostly because they are not important enough), but I think that for
many projects it is a great choice, for the reasons mentioned above.
We could continue this discussion for another few dozen posts, but I
don’t think it will be fruitful, so it’s EOD for me.
On Mar 15, 9:08 am, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:22:37PM +0900, Bill K. wrote:
I dunno; I’m not suggesting a perfect solution exists; I’m
just saying we have real-life issues with closed source
binaries in the Q2 community. And these are issues I felt
the GPL (or some other license meeting the appropriate
criteria) would have solved/prevented.
So would any number of other possible solutions, such as reimplementing
the same stuff
Great Idea. Why care about licenses at all, when we can just
reimplement everything we need?
One of the problems I have with the GPL is that it
reduces the ability of a reimplimentation under another license to
“catch on”, in large part thanks to the fame imparted on it by the
successes of some software projects that bear the GPL.
So the problem you have with the GPL is that GPL projects usually work
very well? I see your point…
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 03:40:07AM +0900, [email protected] wrote:
Forgive me my sarcasm, but I just think that your arguments against
the GPL are mostly FUD. The “can I redistribute a binary if I have
lost the source” scenario is far-fetched, you vastly overstate the
cost of providing source code, and you just refuse to accept the fact
that the GPL works insofar that it forces companies to reveal the
source code of products they would otherwise not reveal, which
ultimately benefits the end user.
Far-fetched?
I have a few dozen Ubuntu CDs that I can’t distribute to anyone without
getting in touch with the Ubuntu project and asking for the source for
them before giving them away. So much for the attractive packaging and
easy-to-use CDs. I guess they’re garbage now, unless I want to try to
entice the Ubuntu project to give me collections of version-specific
source.
I suppose I could try to hunt down every single piece of GPLed
binary-compiled software on these CDs, but that’s just a ludicrous
exercise in stupidity at this point. The only reason I still have them
is that I’m loath to throw away what hasn’t been used, but the fact
remains that I have some excellent materials for introducing people
gently to the world of non-Windows software that cannot be used.
The convenient legal distributability of most Linux distributions’
installers “rots”.
If I vastly overstate the cost of providing source code, I’d appreciate
having the numbers I quoted being quoted back at me.
WoodHacker wrote:
On Mar 9, 9:41 pm, Yannick G. [email protected] wrote:
Just a quick question: I’m sick of using Command Prompt for my little
Ruby programs, and I was wondering what can get me started? I know that
No one has mentioned Gtk, which I’m now using with Ruby with great
success. I have not tried it on Windows (or the Mac), but I believe
it works on both.
I have had success with Ruby/Gtk/ruby-gnome2 on a Mac, OS X 10.4 and
Windows.
There is a one-click installer for windows:
Ruby-GNOME 2 - Browse Files at SourceForge.net
On the mac I used darwinports to install everything. There was a small
problem building it (I had to move the existing readline lib out of the
way),
but other that that it was pretty simple.
I am able to move applications/scripts between Windows and Mac, and
everything
works well
Martin
Une Bévue wrote:
Martin P. [email protected] wrote:
I have had success with Ruby/Gtk/ruby-gnome2 on a Mac, OS X 10.4 and Windows.
I am able to move applications/scripts between Windows and Mac, and everything
works well
That’s really fine having an X-platform like GUI.
Do you have to change something within your Ruby scripts ?
Nope. Well, nothing Gtk specific, just the usual stuff. The themes on
each machine
make somethings look a bit more decorative than others, but
interactionally they are
identical.
Martin
Martin P. [email protected] wrote:
I have had success with Ruby/Gtk/ruby-gnome2 on a Mac, OS X 10.4 and Windows.
It seems we’ll get the GTK2 & Cairo “Quartz” variant in a near future,
following recent post on MacPorts-User…
There is a one-click installer for windows:
Ruby-GNOME 2 - Browse Files at SourceForge.net
On the mac I used darwinports to install everything. There was a small
problem building it (I had to move the existing readline lib out of the way),
but other that that it was pretty simple.
I am able to move applications/scripts between Windows and Mac, and everything
works well
That’s really fine having an X-platform like GUI.
Do you have to change something within your Ruby scripts ?