No I don't think many people do that.

In that case it's probably best to separate out your deployment from your
code.


BTW https://github.com/capistrano/capistrano/blob/master/LICENSE.txt says
it's MIT licensed.



On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Will Bryant <[email protected]> wrote:

> Extending the cap code.  I guess not something a lot of its users do.
>
>
> On 19/02/2014, at 16:52 , Tim Uckun <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> When you say you are modifying it do you mean you are modifying the
> capistrano code or just writing config files?
>
> Once again there is no requirement for your deployment files to be mixed
> in with your application. They can be in completely different repositories.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Will Bryant <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> We are modifying it if & when we build tools on top of it, and we are
>> distributing it if we sell our system to other companies.
>>
>> Like I say, this may not concern everyone, since most people merely use
>> it as you suggest, but it certainly concerns us.
>>
>> One of the great things about Ruby is that almost everything written for
>> it is MIT or similar.  Not having to worry about where the code goes is a
>> privilege we don't want to lose :).  Especially not when the current
>> version of a tool is MIT!
>>
>>
>> On 8/02/2014, at 22:48 , Tim Uckun <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> The GPL only applies when you do two things.
>>
>> 1. Modify the source code
>> 2. Distribute the source code.
>>
>> Since you are not modifying capistrano and are not distributing the
>> modified version of capistrano you should be OK.
>>
>> It sounds like your lawyers are confused.  Maybe you can create a
>> separate repository for your capistrano files. Better yet run your
>> capistrano scripts from a pristine laptop bought just for that purpose and
>> nothing else.  That way you can convince your lawyers you are save.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Will Bryant <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to