[#6954] Why isn't Perl highly orthogonal? — Terrence Brannon <brannon@...>

27 messages 2000/12/09

[#7022] Re: Ruby in the US — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...>

> Is it possible for the US to develop corporate

36 messages 2000/12/11
[#7633] Re: Ruby in the US — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/19

tonys@myspleenklug.on.ca (tony summerfelt) writes:

[#7636] Re: Ruby in the US — "Joseph McDonald" <joe@...> 2000/12/19

[#7704] Re: Ruby in the US — Jilani Khaldi <jilanik@...> 2000/12/19

> > first candidates would be mysql and postgressql because source is

[#7705] Code sample for improvement — Stephen White <steve@...> 2000/12/19

During an idle chat with someone on IRC, they presented some fairly

[#7750] Re: Code sample for improvement — "Guy N. Hurst" <gnhurst@...> 2000/12/20

Stephen White wrote:

[#7751] Re: Code sample for improvement — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/20

Hello --

[#7755] Re: Code sample for improvement — "Guy N. Hurst" <gnhurst@...> 2000/12/20

David Alan Black wrote:

[#7758] Re: Code sample for improvement — Stephen White <steve@...> 2000/12/20

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Guy N. Hurst wrote:

[#7759] Next amusing problem: talking integers (was Re: Code sample for improvement) — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/20

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Stephen White wrote:

[#7212] New User Survey: we need your opinions — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

16 messages 2000/12/14

[#7330] A Java Developer's Wish List for Ruby — "Richard A.Schulman" <RichardASchulman@...>

I see Ruby as having a very bright future as a language to

22 messages 2000/12/15

[#7354] Ruby performance question — Eric Crampton <EricCrampton@...>

I'm parsing simple text lines which look like this:

21 messages 2000/12/15
[#7361] Re: Ruby performance question — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/15

Eric Crampton <EricCrampton@worldnet.att.net> writes:

[#7367] Re: Ruby performance question — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/16

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#7371] Re: Ruby performance question — "Joseph McDonald" <joe@...> 2000/12/16

[#7366] GUIs for Rubies — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Thought I'd switch the subject line to the subject at hand.

22 messages 2000/12/16

[#7416] Re: Ruby IDE (again) — Kevin Smith <kevins14@...>

>> >> I would contribute to this project, if it

17 messages 2000/12/16
[#7422] Re: Ruby IDE (again) — Holden Glova <dsafari@...> 2000/12/16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#7582] New to Ruby — takaoueda@...

I have just started learning Ruby with the book of Thomas and Hunt. The

24 messages 2000/12/18

[#7604] Any corrections for Programming Ruby — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

12 messages 2000/12/18

[#7737] strange border-case Numeric errors — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...>

I haven't had a good enough chance to familiarize myself with the code in

19 messages 2000/12/20

[#7801] Is Ruby part of any standard GNU Linux distributions? — "Pete McBreen, McBreen.Consulting" <mcbreenp@...>

Anybody know what it would take to get Ruby into the standard GNU Linux

15 messages 2000/12/20

[#7938] Re: defined? problem? — Kevin Smith <sent@...>

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:

26 messages 2000/12/22
[#7943] Re: defined? problem? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/22

Kevin Smith <sent@qualitycode.com> writes:

[#7950] Re: defined? problem? — Stephen White <steve@...> 2000/12/22

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#7951] Re: defined? problem? — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/22

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Stephen White wrote:

[#7954] Re: defined? problem? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/22

David Alan Black <dblack@candle.superlink.net> writes:

[#7975] Re: defined? problem? — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/22

Hello --

[#7971] Hash access method — Ted Meng <ted_meng@...>

Hi,

20 messages 2000/12/22

[#8030] Re: Basic hash question — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "B" == Ben Tilly <ben_tilly@hotmail.com> writes:

15 messages 2000/12/24
[#8033] Re: Basic hash question — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2000/12/24

On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, ts wrote:

[#8178] Inexplicable core dump — "Nathaniel Talbott" <ntalbott@...>

I have some code that looks like this:

12 messages 2000/12/28

[#8196] My first impression of Ruby. Lack of overloading? (long) — jmichel@... (Jean Michel)

Hello,

23 messages 2000/12/28

[#8198] Re: Ruby cron scheduler for NT available — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

John Small wrote:

14 messages 2000/12/28

[#8287] Re: speedup of anagram finder — "SHULTZ,BARRY (HP-Israel,ex1)" <barry_shultz@...>

> -----Original Message-----

12 messages 2000/12/29

[ruby-talk:7268] Re: Ruby in the US

From: "Ben Tilly" <ben_tilly@...>
Date: 2000-12-15 00:58:42 UTC
List: ruby-talk #7268
amk@mira.erols.com (A.M. Kuchling) wrote:
>
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:45:44 +0900, Ben Tilly <ben_tilly@hotmail.com> 
>wrote:
> >By contrast Guido has tried to maintain more control over
> >Python's licensing.
>
>You're incorrect, and I'd like to stamp out this FUD.
>
>Before version 1.6, the Python license was the same as the MIT X11
>license.  With version 1.6, CNRI, GvR's former employer and my current
>one, demanded a licensing change, very much against the will of GvR
>and the Python community.  The 1.6/2.0 license, visible at
>http://hdl.handle.net/1895.22/1012, is much longer, but most of the
>terms have little bearing on what you can do with the software; only
>terms 2 and 3 matter, and according to them you're still perfectly
>free to use and distribute modified versions of the software.
>Commercial products can embed Python and don't have to ship any source
>code, Infoseek and CADscript being two examples of projects that do
>that.  Nor do you have to hew to any language definition; the Alice
>project made serious language-level modifications (case-insensitive
>identifiers, and changing the definition of the / operator) and
>redistributed the resulting binaries.  You're simply incorrect in this
>statement.

I am not positive what I am misremembering.  However when I
look at http://www.python.org/1.6/license_faq.html I see
think I remember.  Prior to 1.6 the licensing was unclear,
there was no guarantee that the availability of the software
could not be revoked.  The new licensing situation is a vast
improvement, but as item 7 says, it is unresolved whether it
is GPL compatible.

So the licensing situation for Python is not entirely perfect
but it is not nearly as bad as I thought.  Thanks for the
correction.

> >If this restriction appears likely to cause problems, then
> >it may be worthwhile for someone to take some time out to
> >come up with less restrictive replacements for the key
> >sections.
>
>PCRE might be worth contemplating as a BSD-licensed regular expression
>library, since it provides Perl-compatibility and is fairly readable.
>The pcre_compile() function is pretty hairy, though, but I'm sure
>PCRE's author would accept improvements; he was quite friendly when I
>was adapting PCRE to Python.

Better and better. :-)

Cheers,
Ben
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

In This Thread

Prev Next