On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 07:55:48PM -0500, Adam Patterson wrote:
> 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?
I don't know. If you come here I'd expect informed questions. What's
the use of discussing the license of the interpreter of the software
when talking about the software ?
> "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.
The useless discussion on licenses beyond the control of the
developers coupled with the poor formatting provoked some sarcasm,
yes. Marc Espie, who wrote most of the code, gave us the pkg-tools
under an ISC license. The reasons for his choice of language have been
documented on the OpenBSD mailinglists. I was not 'quick' or 'trying
to be the first' (a useless effort when you're replying to a mail that
has already been replied to, by the way), just pointing out (in a
sarcastic way, I will grant you that) that it's mostly a fruitless
discussion.
There's a difference between :
"What technical reasons have lead the developers to elect this
language ?"
and
"[Perl is not BSD licensed] What technical reasons have lead the
developers to elect this language ?"
The first is asking a technical question, the second is bringing
politics into your techincal question. What do you want, a technical
discussion or a political discussion ? As had been pointed out, the
technical question had already been answered, the political discussion
(I think) merits a sarcastic answer, as this has definitely been
discussed over and over and over again.
If you don't like the license on perl, you are free to implement the
language on your own and license the result any way you like. I just
don't see how its license is of any relevance to the software you
write in it. OpenBSD comes with perl. It's not going away. Why not use
it ? How is it different to using GPL'd GCC to compile ISC'd code ? In
the latter case, everybody seems to understand that the license of the
compiler has little to do with the license of the code it compiles.
The political discussion about using GPL'd GCC and the technical
discussion about using C for the base OS have so far been completely
separate. The intent of my sarcastic mail was to point out that these
two are best kept separate.
Obviously, I failed.
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
[arguing because I'm Dutch]
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
