From: Christian Boos <cboos@...>
Date: 2001-12-20T22:19:12+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:29109] Re: Ruby 'make' replacement (Re: stderr from external process?)

Hello Jason,

Thanks for changing your license to the Ruby license.
"Torrent" definitely looks interesting for a generalized build system.
I don't see yet the "granularity" where I could better benefit from it.

For distributed builds and testing, it would be a must. I guess it should
be possible to combine Torrent with drb somehow?

Anyhow, I will look deeper into it.

-- Christian


-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Horman [mailto:jason@jhorman.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 12:44 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: [ruby-talk:29094] Re: Ruby 'make' replacement (Re: stderr from
external process?)


I wrote the Torrent library. I was not sure what license to pick so I picked
GPL. I can pick something different if it makes things easier. My intent was
to make it freely available for any purpose. I can change the license to
Ruby, actually I will change to the Ruby license right now.

I will also upload the latest version with some minor fixes and feature
enhancements. I was thinking the same thing when I read the post about a
ruby "make" or "ant" utility. I think Torrent could make the development of
such a framework much easier.

-jason

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Tomson" <ptkwt@shell1.aracnet.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>; <undisclosed-recipients:>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 4:08 AM
Subject: [ruby-talk:29057] Re: Ruby 'make' replacement (Re: stderr from
external process?)


> In article <3c210d85$0$62854$edfadb0f@dspool01.news.tele.dk>,
> MikkelFJ <mikkelj-anti-spam@post1.dknet.dk> 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.
>
> Phil
>
>