I totally agree that a lot of people would be fine with using a GPL deployment tool, but we need to be pretty careful about IP in our company, and it is not at all cool that the true license is not stated up front so people can make a decision about it.
I do feel that since Jamis Buck and co did so much great work on an MIT project, it doesn't feel right to effectively GPL the new version of it, or at least a very major part of it, without public discussion. GPL is really not very friendly to the Ruby community, which has been deliberately very liberal with its licenses so we don't have to deal with this crap. With regards to the maintainers, I don't have any beef with leehambley who I'm sure has done a lot of good work there. But it is his company lawyers who have imposed the license and I have zero trust in them, especially since a) they don't appear to understand the GPL as I read it and b) they have declared: > SSHKit is intentionally restrictively licensed to protect the investment that > my company made in building it, which is something I also don't have a choice > about Our lawyers can't just ignore that. In addition, I'll have to check with legal, but my understanding was that the GPL can be enforced by anyone - not just the copyright owners. So to a certain extent it doesn't matter what leehambley's lawyers' interpretation is, it's what the world's is, and the rest of the world interprets GPL in the traditional way. Rsync is a bit easier because it's a separate program and the interface between it and callers is very minimal, so basically not enough to create a combined work unless your whole product is somehow based around rsync and closely integrated with it. Now in fact we've been advised that there is no clear rule as to what makes something a combined work, but using a library directly and basing your tools around it certainly does make it a combined work - that is indeed the point of the GPL (as opposed to the LGPL) for libraries. Does that affect deployment if your deployment is integrated somehow with your application? No probably not, but I'm not likely to be able to convince our general counsel that we should be the ones to find out :). On 8/02/2014, at 09:08 , Steve H <[email protected]> wrote: > If you're concerned, simply don't bundle capistrano with your application; > use it independently. Your capistrano deploy scripts don't even need to be in > the same repository, let alone the Gemfile. > > To add to what Grant said: rsync is GPL; if you used rsync to deploy your > application, it doesn't mean your application now must be licensed under the > GPL. > > Also, unless I'm missing something, leehambley is also the author of sshkit, > and came right out and said you specifically are fine to use it. So what are > you concerned about? Him reneging and suing? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "WellRailed" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wellrailed. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WellRailed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wellrailed. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
