From: MikkelFJ Date: 2001-12-20T20:29:19+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:29090] Re: Ruby 'make' replacement (Re: stderr from external process?) "Phil Tomson" wrote in message news:UycU7.67067$m8.2947@news.webusenet.com... > In article <3c210d85$0$62854$edfadb0f@dspool01.news.tele.dk>, > MikkelFJ wrote: > > > > > >The Torrent Workflow is a recently RAA posted workflow scheduler that is > >quite useful for build framework. > >Unfortunately it is GPL'ed, which makes it of limited use. On the positive > >side, it is not difficult to copy the concept. > > > > Why does it's being under GPL limit it's use? Unless you are planning for > your 'make' replacement to be closed source, I don't see why GPL would > limit it's use even in commercial environments. First - making the Torrent GPL forces the YANT (Yeat Another Neat Tool) make tool to be GPL. I don't have the option to also give a GPL. It can only be GPL. This makes it impossible to incorporate the make tool into a commecial development enviroment, or in an enviroment using non-GPL tools. Finally, the very nature of Ant requires the extensions used to configure the build with to ge GPL. This means that I can't even have a closed source build configuration (not that I necessarily would want that). To me the GPL is a nice idea, but I generally avoid using anything in source form. I even had problems with Bison once, but luckily they changed the license to not cover the generated output even though it contained original source. Bison couldn't even have done that if they had used some elses GPL'ed source. I do not generally sympathise with Microsoft, and I do not like the way they attack the GPL community. But I still don't like the license. It is actually against open source because it makes itself better than other licences. I wouldn't even have this discussion if Ruby were GPL'ed. MikkelFJ