GUI With Ruby

[Clifford Heath]

Ellie,

What this all boils down to at core is this: both BSD and GPL folks are
good, decent people. BSD folks like to give gifts to the individual
developer whilst GPL folks prefer to give their gifts to the community
of end-users

Thanks. This discussion, which I hadn't been following but
just read, was crystallized for me by your thoughtful message.

Here I am, awake again at 2AM, trying to decide whether I made
the right choice in zlib for what (I hope) will be a significant
contribution to both developers and society in general on a new
project - being torn because I want it free, so at least all the
Ruby community can use it, but because I want a share in some of
the financial benefits others may gain from it.

I've always released things under BSD-style licenses, because I
think that if a gift is given, it should be free of obligation
of any significance, i.e. more than mere acknowledgment. I'm
releasing code in Ruby, and I'm happy if that code gets used
without any other obligations.

However, in this case, I think it's quite likely to get cloned
into other languages, and some of those clones will be sold in
their own right, and get used as "proprietary tools of dubious
provenance" that cost both the developer and the end-user... a
lot. If that's going to happen, I want a slice. Perhaps I really
need a patent with some free rights... but I hate that idea too.

Bit of a quandary really... but your message helped. Is there
a license that allows free use and extension of an item, but
restricts other derivations?

Clifford Heath.

 

[Robert Dober]

Which if course is the main point of contention between the BSD and
GPL camps. If I were to release code under BSD it would ensure I
received recognition for the effort involved in writing it, if I
released under GPL it would allow me to control how distributors and
derivators used the code. The former is essentially a gift to the
community (in the same way as a named Hospital Wing) whilst the
latter is more akin to a feudal patent - only one where the
obligation is measured in source code distribution and resubmission.

That is not so, you do not have to contribute there is no obligation.
There is only a rule what is so wrong with playing with the rules,
Rick do you hear me? You explain it soooo much better!

Of course I'm not sure Richard Stallman would wish to be described as
architect of a system of feudal governance, but that's a discussion
for another day ;p

Nor would I but I really fail to see that analogy apply.

What this all boils down to at core is this: both BSD and GPL folks
are good, decent people. BSD folks like to give gifts to the
individual developer whilst GPL folks prefer to give their gifts to
the community of end-users - without the former the world would have
a lot fewer clever developers, and without the latter we'd all be
stuck with proprietary tools of dubious provenance.

Well that pretty much sums it up very nicely, does this mean that I
have not understand the feudal stuff above???

Which of the two groups any one of us falls in at any given time
surely depends on what we're hoping to achieve with our current project?

Exactly I might chose BSD because I really do not want to "protect" my
source code or I might use GPL because I want

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains

Stack overvlow
Robert

 

[Chad Perrin]

Which if course is the main point of contention between the BSD and
GPL camps. If I were to release code under BSD it would ensure I
received recognition for the effort involved in writing it, if I
released under GPL it would allow me to control how distributors and
derivators used the code. The former is essentially a gift to the
community (in the same way as a named Hospital Wing) whilst the
latter is more akin to a feudal patent - only one where the
obligation is measured in source code distribution and resubmission.

Oooh . . . "feudal patent" is an interesting turn of phrase. Is that
original, or did you run across it somewhere else? I'm curious.

If it's your original material -- may I quote you with your blessing?

Of course I'm not sure Richard Stallman would wish to be described as
architect of a system of feudal governance, but that's a discussion
for another day ;p

I'm sure he wouldn't.

What this all boils down to at core is this: both BSD and GPL folks
are good, decent people. BSD folks like to give gifts to the
individual developer whilst GPL folks prefer to give their gifts to
the community of end-users - without the former the world would have
a lot fewer clever developers, and without the latter we'd all be
stuck with proprietary tools of dubious provenance.

I don't entirely agree with this. The FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and
other BSD-based OS projects prove that one need not exercise legal
control over distribution to ensure that the open source code stays
publicly available. About 15,000 ports in the FreeBSD ports tree see to
that, at the very least.

Which of the two groups any one of us falls in at any given time
surely depends on what we're hoping to achieve with our current project?

There's some truth in that. Of course, what I'd really like to achieve
in a broader sense is something like a hereditary public domain -- once
something goes into it, it doesn't come back out.

 

[Chad Perrin]

I've always released things under BSD-style licenses, because I
think that if a gift is given, it should be free of obligation
of any significance, i.e. more than mere acknowledgment. I'm
releasing code in Ruby, and I'm happy if that code gets used
without any other obligations.

However, in this case, I think it's quite likely to get cloned
into other languages, and some of those clones will be sold in
their own right, and get used as "proprietary tools of dubious
provenance" that cost both the developer and the end-user... a
lot. If that's going to happen, I want a slice. Perhaps I really
need a patent with some free rights... but I hate that idea too.

Bit of a quandary really... but your message helped. Is there
a license that allows free use and extension of an item, but
restricts other derivations?

I'm not entirely sure what sort of restrictions you want, but you might
want to check out the options at Creative Commons. If you find
something pretty similar to your intent but not quite perfect, just
create a derivative license of your own. You may want to call them up
to verify that there aren't any legal entanglements (I did that once,
when I wanted a license almost but not exactly like one of theirs), but
otherwise, Creative Commons might serve as a handy place to get ideas
for licensing.

You might also want to check out the OSI list of licenses to see if
anything gets close to what you want.

At first glance, it looks like you're trying to restrict what cannot be
legally restricted (easily) while giving away rights that are more
easily restricted by law. As I said, though, I'm not entirely clear on
what you're trying to accomplish.

 

[Chad Perrin]

Yes actually. It's never ever happened to me. Not worth worrying about
IMO.

It has happened to two of my CDRs over the last few years, as far as
I've noticed. It may have happened to more, though I may not have
noticed because I haven't gotten them out to check.

I don't store important stuff on CDs any longer. At least, not *only*
on CDs.

 

[Chad Perrin]

The release of the Linksys router source code was a direct reaction to
the discovering of GPL violations. The original URL for the source
code was http://www.linksys.com/support/gpl.asp... that speaks
volumes, doesn't it?

Not in a vacuum.

 

[Eleanor McHugh]

Well that pretty much sums it up very nicely, does this mean that I
have not understand the feudal stuff above???

Apparently not. My reference to feudalism was to the notion of a
social contract, which essentially is what the GPL defines, in which
rights derive from a single point of unquestionable moral authority
and everyone else has a clearly delineated role with attendant rights
and obligations. For the GPL's purpose this is exactly how things
should be.

Exactly I might chose BSD because I really do not want to "protect" my
source code or I might use GPL because I want

Yes, which is why it's foolish of people to take a religious stance
one way or the other. Personally I've never used the GPL for a
project, but I don't value my code that much. However if I was
working on something that would require months or years of costly
development the GPL might be an ideal way to have my cake and eat it:
open source so end-users can be confident my product is good, but a
license that keeps me in control.

Stack overvlow

Guess we're still in beta then


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains

 

[Eleanor McHugh]

Oooh . . . "feudal patent" is an interesting turn of phrase. Is that
original, or did you run across it somewhere else? I'm curious.

If it's your original material -- may I quote you with your blessing?

It's probably original in this context, although it may have some
historical meaning that I've stomped all over: too much random
reading... Anyway feel free to reuse it elsewhere if you find it
useful - just don't expect any tech support lol

I don't entirely agree with this. The FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and
other BSD-based OS projects prove that one need not exercise legal
control over distribution to ensure that the open source code stays
publicly available. About 15,000 ports in the FreeBSD ports tree
see to
that, at the very least.

I agree with you that it is possible for large open-source
communities to thrive without the GPL, and as someone who doesn't
choose to use it for my own projects I can't really argue in its
favour. However it does appear to be a very effective tool for
keeping software free where third-parties have less than honourable
motives and the resources to act upon them.

There's some truth in that. Of course, what I'd really like to
achieve
in a broader sense is something like a hereditary public domain --
once
something goes into it, it doesn't come back out.

I'm not entirely sure how something can be legitimately removed from
the public domain once it's in it. Which isn't to say that people
can't use public domain property in a proprietary manner, just that
that shouldn't impact on the ability of other people to use it in the
public domain. However I'm probably being very naive about this.


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains

 

[Bill Kelly]

I don't entirely agree with this. The FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and
other BSD-based OS projects prove that one need not exercise legal
control over distribution to ensure that the open source code stays
publicly available. About 15,000 ports in the FreeBSD ports tree see to
that, at the very least.

I don't see how that example would be applicable to the cases
of open source -> closed source that are plaguing the Quake II
community these days, though.

Quake II is ten years old this year. id Software originally
released the "game" under a custom open-source license, while
keeping the "engine" private. (Many years later, all of the
source for the game+engine was released under the GPL.)

The original custom open source license under which the
customizable 'game' portion of the code was released, was not
very clear on whether the source had to be kept open for
modified/derivative works.

Personally, I think the GPL should be used sparingly. But in
the situation the Quake II community now finds itself in, I
definitely wish the 'game' source had been released under the
GPL from the very beginning.

What we have now, are numerous game modification modules in
binary form, long abandoned by their authors. Often we're
simply unable to locate any current contact information for
the author to even ask whether they might now consider
releasing the source after all this time; but in other cases
the authors have simply refused to release the source to
their mod--and keep in mind their code is a derivative work
of the original open source code.

So now we have situations like the following, where not
only are there numerous little bugs in the mod code that
we would like to fix and features we'd like to improve upon;
but we have serious security vulnerabilities like the
following that are being discovered:

http://secur1ty.net/advisories/002-Multiple_Vulnerabilities_In_OSP_Tourney_For_Quake_II.txt

And the above is an example of a mod where the author has
reportedly flatly refused to open the source.

So we're left with either enacting hacky workarounds to
mitigate the security flaws, or disabling key features of
the mod, or not allowing the mod to be played anymore at
all on our servers... or maybe hacking the binary--which
no-one has time for.

And yes--It's just a game. So it's not like the end of the
world or anything... But still. What a drag.

So anyway; I often avoid the GPL, but this is a very
non-hypothetical example where I've realized I really wish
the 'game' source had been released GPL from the very
beginning.

From my point of view, we have a very concrete example
of a case where after a decade, it's become apparent that
a license that would have required the source stay open
would have been far preferable to one that allowed what
was originally open source to become closed source.


Regards,

Bill

 

[Chad Perrin]

It's probably original in this context, although it may have some
historical meaning that I've stomped all over: too much random
reading... Anyway feel free to reuse it elsewhere if you find it
useful - just don't expect any tech support lol

Excellent. Thanks.

I agree with you that it is possible for large open-source
communities to thrive without the GPL, and as someone who doesn't
choose to use it for my own projects I can't really argue in its
favour. However it does appear to be a very effective tool for
keeping software free where third-parties have less than honourable
motives and the resources to act upon them.

I guess part of that depends on your definition of "honorable" (sorry, I
tend to use USian spelling).

I'm not entirely sure how something can be legitimately removed from
the public domain once it's in it. Which isn't to say that people
can't use public domain property in a proprietary manner, just that
that shouldn't impact on the ability of other people to use it in the
public domain. However I'm probably being very naive about this.

Any time you create a derivative work, based on something in the public
domain, the derivative work is subject to copyright law -- at least,
according to US law that's the case. I used very casual terms to refer
to this process, as the original, unaltered work obviously is still in
the public domain -- but something as simple as adding a preface can
create a non-public domain work.

 

[Chad Perrin]

I don't see how that example would be applicable to the cases
of open source -> closed source that are plaguing the Quake II
community these days, though.

Quake II is ten years old this year. id Software originally
released the "game" under a custom open-source license, while
keeping the "engine" private. (Many years later, all of the
source for the game+engine was released under the GPL.)

The original custom open source license under which the
customizable 'game' portion of the code was released, was not
very clear on whether the source had to be kept open for
modified/derivative works.

One need not use the GPL to ensure that.

So we're left with either enacting hacky workarounds to
mitigate the security flaws, or disabling key features of
the mod, or not allowing the mod to be played anymore at
all on our servers... or maybe hacking the binary--which
no-one has time for.

The same line applies to that as to the GPL: you don't have to use it if
you don't want to abide by the license terms. Frankly, I think that's a
sucky way to approach it, but I think it's sucky whether you're talking
about the GPL or unreleased copyrighted works.

of a case where after a decade, it's become apparent that
a license that would have required the source stay open
would have been far preferable to one that allowed what
was originally open source to become closed source.

Are you talking about the software being offered under an open source
license, or are you talking about the source being forced into public
accessibility by licensing? You aren't exactly clear on that score.

 

[Bill Kelly]

One need not use the GPL to ensure that.

OK. Indeed, I should probably be clear that I don't give
a fig about GPL qua GPL in this context. *Any* license that
could have ensured that derivative works of what was
originally an open source work, stayed open source, would
have--in my opinion--sufficed to alleviate the current
Quake II closed-source-mod situation.

The same line applies to that as to the GPL: you don't have to use it if
you don't want to abide by the license terms. Frankly, I think that's a
sucky way to approach it, but I think it's sucky whether you're talking
about the GPL or unreleased copyrighted works.

I'm not sure whether I understand your point here, or not.
We have binaries that are essentially bit-rotting. The
difference between source availability and binary availability
here is all that seems germane to the particular situation I'm
trying to describe.

I can see how "you don't have to use it" might apply (and
how GPL advocates might also use that argument in other
contexts), but my assessment of our current situation (in the
Q2 community) is that we would have been better served by a
license that ensured that derivative works of open source
works *stayed* open source. (Whatever license offered that
particular protection/limitation.)

Are you talking about the software being offered under an open source
license, or are you talking about the source being forced into public
accessibility by licensing? You aren't exactly clear on that score.

Well; (I'm re-reading your earlier post about Linux LiveCD's)...

To approach it from the inside-out, I'm saying that something
would have to have been different to avoid the situation we now
find ourselves in, where we have bit-rotting closed-source
binaries that are derivative works of an originally open source
release from the manufacturer.

So, I guess must be talking about, in some way, the source
being forced into public accessibility by licensing.

But: in practical terms, after a decade, source often seems to
be available (mirrored with the binary) in cases where the
authors of the mod _originally_ chose to release the source with
their binary. The cases where we can't find source code are
typically those where source was _never_ released.

I realize things get sticky where one tries to place limits
on how long the mod author must provide a link to the source
code. And not everybody wants to download the source with
the binary. I think I understand your Linux LiveCD point;
(although I must admit, with terabyte hard drives these days
I'd think one could manage to keep every release around in
gzipped source form for three years...)

I dunno; I'm not suggesting a perfect solution exists; I'm
just saying we have real-life issues with closed source
binaries in the Q2 community. And these are issues I felt
the GPL (or some other license meeting the appropriate
criteria) would have solved/prevented.


Regards,

Bill

 

[Chad Perrin]

I'm not sure whether I understand your point here, or not.
We have binaries that are essentially bit-rotting. The
difference between source availability and binary availability
here is all that seems germane to the particular situation I'm
trying to describe.

I can see how "you don't have to use it" might apply (and
how GPL advocates might also use that argument in other
contexts), but my assessment of our current situation (in the
Q2 community) is that we would have been better served by a
license that ensured that derivative works of open source
works *stayed* open source. (Whatever license offered that
particular protection/limitation.)

Sorry, I think I got a little snarky there. That was sort of a
general-purpose response to the commonly offered suggestion that the GPL
is the perfect license because if I don't want to use the GPL I can just
avoid GPLed software when doing development. The same, of course,
applies to proprietary software -- which makes it pretty obvious that
the choice to avoid a given license doesn't make that license any better
or less flawed.

In other words, that wasn't really a response to what you said.

Well; (I'm re-reading your earlier post about Linux LiveCD's)...

To approach it from the inside-out, I'm saying that something
would have to have been different to avoid the situation we now
find ourselves in, where we have bit-rotting closed-source
binaries that are derivative works of an originally open source
release from the manufacturer.

So, I guess must be talking about, in some way, the source
being forced into public accessibility by licensing.

But: in practical terms, after a decade, source often seems to
be available (mirrored with the binary) in cases where the
authors of the mod _originally_ chose to release the source with
their binary. The cases where we can't find source code are
typically those where source was _never_ released.

I realize things get sticky where one tries to place limits
on how long the mod author must provide a link to the source
code. And not everybody wants to download the source with
the binary. I think I understand your Linux LiveCD point;
(although I must admit, with terabyte hard drives these days
I'd think one could manage to keep every release around in
gzipped source form for three years...)

I dunno; I'm not suggesting a perfect solution exists; I'm
just saying we have real-life issues with closed source
binaries in the Q2 community. And these are issues I felt
the GPL (or some other license meeting the appropriate
criteria) would have solved/prevented.

So would any number of other possible solutions, such as reimplementing
the same stuff and releasing the source so that the closed source
version is obsolesced, refusing to use the closed source version in the
first place, a little bit more social pressure on the guy unwilling to
open the source, and so on. Part of the problem, I think, is that
people probably haven't really considered all the possible reasons for
the source not being divulged. For instance, it may contain code that
was written by someone else, and the developer may have plagiarized it,
and not want anyone to know. Who knows what the reason is? There may
be a perfectly rational -- if perfectly despicable -- motivation
involved.

In any case, if you want something under an open source license badly
enough, and there's no way to get the existing version's source
released, the obvious solution seems to be to reimplement it -- but do a
better job of it. One of the problems I have with the GPL is that it
reduces the ability of a reimplimentation under another license to
"catch on", in large part thanks to the fame imparted on it by the
successes of some software projects that bear the GPL. The same
deterrents do not apply to closed-source software.

 

[google]

So would any number of other possible solutions, such as reimplementing
the same stuff

Great Idea. Why care about licenses at all, when we can just
reimplement everything we need?

One of the problems I have with the GPL is that it
reduces the ability of a reimplimentation under another license to
"catch on", in large part thanks to the fame imparted on it by the
successes of some software projects that bear the GPL.

So the problem you have with the GPL is that GPL projects usually work
very well? I see your point...

 

[google]

So would any number of other possible solutions, such as reimplementing
the same stuff

Great Idea. Why care about licenses at all, when we can just
reimplement everything we need?

One of the problems I have with the GPL is that it
reduces the ability of a reimplimentation under another license to
"catch on", in large part thanks to the fame imparted on it by the
successes of some software projects that bear the GPL.

So the problem you have with the GPL is that GPL projects usually work
very well? I see your point...

 

[Chad Perrin]

Great Idea. Why care about licenses at all, when we can just
reimplement everything we need?


So the problem you have with the GPL is that GPL projects usually work
very well? I see your point...

Thank you for your sarcasm, and for completely ignoring the actual
problems I have with the GPL in favor of sniping and ridicule.

 

[google]

Thank you for your sarcasm, and for completely ignoring the actual
problems I have with the GPL in favor of sniping and ridicule.

Forgive me my sarcasm, but I just think that your arguments against
the GPL are mostly FUD. The "can I redistribute a binary if I have
lost the source" scenario is far-fetched, you vastly overstate the
cost of providing source code, and you just refuse to accept the fact
that the GPL works insofar that it forces companies to reveal the
source code of products they would otherwise not reveal, which
ultimately benefits the end user.

I'm not a GPL "fan", in fact I have never used in any of my projects
(mostly because they are not important enough), but I think that for
many projects it is a great choice, for the reasons mentioned above.

We could continue this discussion for another few dozen posts, but I
don't think it will be fruitful, so it's EOD for me.

 

[Chad Perrin]

Forgive me my sarcasm, but I just think that your arguments against
the GPL are mostly FUD. The "can I redistribute a binary if I have
lost the source" scenario is far-fetched, you vastly overstate the
cost of providing source code, and you just refuse to accept the fact
that the GPL works insofar that it forces companies to reveal the
source code of products they would otherwise not reveal, which
ultimately benefits the end user.

Far-fetched?

I have a few dozen Ubuntu CDs that I can't distribute to anyone without
getting in touch with the Ubuntu project and asking for the source for
them before giving them away. So much for the attractive packaging and
easy-to-use CDs. I guess they're garbage now, unless I want to try to
entice the Ubuntu project to give me collections of version-specific
source.

I suppose I could try to hunt down every single piece of GPLed
binary-compiled software on these CDs, but that's just a ludicrous
exercise in stupidity at this point. The only reason I still have them
is that I'm loath to throw away what hasn't been used, but the fact
remains that I have some excellent materials for introducing people
gently to the world of non-Windows software that cannot be used.

The convenient legal distributability of most Linux distributions'
installers "rots".

If I vastly overstate the cost of providing source code, I'd appreciate
having the numbers I quoted being quoted back at me.

 

[Martin Portman]

No one has mentioned Gtk, which I'm now using with Ruby with great
success. I have not tried it on Windows (or the Mac), but I believe
it works on both.

I have had success with Ruby/Gtk/ruby-gnome2 on a Mac, OS X 10.4 and Windows.

There is a one-click installer for windows:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=53614

On the mac I used darwinports to install everything. There was a small
problem building it (I had to move the existing readline lib out of the way),
but other that that it was pretty simple.

I am able to move applications/scripts between Windows and Mac, and everything
works well

Martin

 

[Une Bévue]

I have had success with Ruby/Gtk/ruby-gnome2 on a Mac, OS X 10.4 and Windows.

It seems we'll get the GTK2 & Cairo "Quartz" variant in a near future,
following recent post on MacPorts-User...

There is a one-click installer for windows:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=53614

On the mac I used darwinports to install everything. There was a small
problem building it (I had to move the existing readline lib out of the way),
but other that that it was pretty simple.

I am able to move applications/scripts between Windows and Mac, and everything
works well

That's really fine having an X-platform like GUI.

Do you have to change something within your Ruby scripts ?