Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 03:23:17PM +0000, hyjial wrote:
| Hi list !
| Reading through OpenBSD's codebase, I have noticed that the code
| living
| under src/usr.sbin/pkg_add is written in Perl. Perl is distributed
| under the Artistic license, though. The latter is not as permissive
| as the BSD
| license under which monst of OpenBSD is released. No doubt
| that is the reason
| why Perl lives in src/gnu.
| Why have such a tool using a non-BSD package when
| there was choice
| not to do so ?
| What technical reasons have lead the
| developers to elect this
| language ?
| I am just curious about the fact and
| didn't manage to find information
| in tech@ and mis@ archives.
So, first of .. your indenting could use some help...
Anyway, perl is distributed under the artistic license, yet the
pkg-tools are licensed under an ISC-style license.
Compare, if you will, with most other tools in OpenBSD. They're C
programs with an ISC or BSD-style license. However, GCC is distributed
under the GPL. Boo-freakidy-hoo .. why make a problem of the perl
license now, is bashing GCC's license not fun anymore ?
You know, if you want, you could write an ISC-licensed perl
interpreter. Go right ahead and feel free to send patches when you're
done. I'll suggest a name for you : 'hurl'. If you're done, could you
please write an ISC-licensed C-compiler in perl so I can finally shut
up all the idiots that claim that a system without a compiler is more
secure ? Don't worry, I can wait.
Cheers,
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
Don't be so defensive. He said he didn't manage to find information on
the mailing lists. Where did you want him to ask an honest question?
"What technical reasons have lead the developers to elect this language ?"
Since when is that a question provoking sarcasm and anger? Its curiosity. Same thing that got most of us here at some point or another.
Everyone is so quick to be the first with a nasty response.
