On 28 November 2010 09:24, Clifford Heath <clifford.he...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/11/2010, at 11:19 PM, Robert Postill wrote: > >> and I think ruby's SSL are GPL code right? > > OpenSSL is dual-licensed: <http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html>. > Ruby's OpenSSL wrapper is licensed under the Ruby license. > >> We depend on massive wedges of GPL software (e.g. mysql or >> postgres) > Postgres is released under its own license, similar to BSD or MIT. > <http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence> > > I'm a grumpy old man about this stuff because people spout off about it > without checking their facts :). Bang to rights there Cliff, I have to put my hands up and say in the Postgres and Ruby OpenSSL portions I'm in the wrong (I got the SSL from this discussion http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-le...@lists.debian.org/msg40689.html which is still kind of enlightening if a little OT). My apologies for not checking my facts more thoroughly. Though in a desperate attempt to salvage something from the point I was making if you take those examples away what about GCC or Sphinx or any one of a cornucopia of utils we use with Ruby?
> > Most of the original UNIX code wasn't that good(*), and anything worthwhile > from it has been rewritten much better than original. That needs to happen > to all software, at least once. It's a net gain, not a loss. My recollection isn't about the old UNIX code but of multiple implementations of basic utilities and faux-openness that poisoned the well we all drank from. For instance GNU tar ended up being the format of tar we preferred at one sys admin job I had because it was the only thing that worked on Solaris, AIX and HP-UX. None of the native tar implementations was light years ahead of the others but they all had annoying bugs or limitations that just weren't in the GNU software. The opportunity to refactor or rewrite comes from the open nature of the software, and GPL forced that to happen when as an industry we believed we all could do do better on our own. I wouldn't want to go back to that and I see GPL as a important defence of the things I don't want wrecked. > I don't agree with that. GPL had its place, but software freedom is firmly > established now and copyleft is just not needed - in fact it's counter- > productive. I read a tweet that debate just hardens peoples positions so at the risk of turning your opinions to stone I think you're wrong :) Software freedom is firmly established for those few that appreciate it. There are still vast screeds of software that is sub-par, proprietary crap and needs the sunlight of freedom shone on it. Take medical devices or automotive systems, both have real impacts on our lives yet we still don't have any idea whether the guts of these software products are any good. We should be able to take our car to any garage or know that the life support system we depend on isn't using a buggy math lib and the GPL is the crowbar that allows that to happen because it makes it hard to use GPL code without being open yourself. > Clifford Heath (the first Unix geek graduate in Melbourne). Wow, you're even older than I thought you were :) Just couldn't resist that one.... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to rails-ocea...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rails-oceania+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
