GUI With Ruby

ruby-talk
41

> >
> <snip>
>
> I feel that the GPL is not *easy* to use but I also feel that it is
> important.
> I am nervous about the BSD or Ruby licence, although they are
> convenient for sure - in the short run.
> I have the feeling that they are naive and that the wonderful things
> they do not really
> protect might be taken away from the community one day.
>
> But I am quite a pessimist.

Optimist: the glass is half full
Pessimist: the glass is half empty
Cynic: the glass is half empty, but it's probably not something you
wanted to drink anyway

I'm a cynic, according to my own definition: an optimist that has
learned from life experience. I am concerned with the notion that the
BSD license doesn't ensure that we will always have source code
available to us when we get the binary. On the other hand, I am *more*
concerned that the *forced distribution of source code* mandated by the
GPL is actually more restrictive in practice. For one thing, it
prevents anyone that didn't have the foresight to get the source at the
same time as the binaries from redistributing the binaries in his or her
possession, unless he or she can still find the source. For another, it
requires, in many cases, for those with limited resources to choose
between maintaining an archive of source code with redundant backups for
several years after distributing binaries, or simply not distributing.

I definitely prefer the BSD license. It would be better to have access
to a binary with no source than neither (to compare worst-case
scenarios).

Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license's applicability to
derivative works is ambiguous. I still prefer the BSD license over the
GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
violations of GPL terms.

I have heard of that and I was quite alarmed about it. I do not
however think that one should forget the importance of GPL and it's
inventor on the paradigm change in society.

Your points are very valid and understandable, but maybe the defensive
aggressive attitude of the FSF is nothing more than somebody wanting
the rights they are fighting for respected.

It is however vital to know how far they go for everybody before they
chose their licence and it is a good thing to talk about it often.

Cheers
Robert

···

On 3/11/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:53:05AM +0900, Robert Dober wrote:

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your
hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." - McCloctnick the Lucid

--
We have not succeeded in answering all of our questions.
In fact, in some ways, we are more confused than ever.
But we feel we are confused on a higher level and about more important things.
-Anonymous

42

I'm a cynic, according to my own definition: an optimist that has
learned from life experience. I am concerned with the notion that the
BSD license doesn't ensure that we will always have source code
available to us when we get the binary.

Yes, that is a concern.

On the other hand, I am *more*
concerned that the *forced distribution of source code* mandated by the
GPL is actually more restrictive in practice. For one thing, it
prevents anyone that didn't have the foresight to get the source at the
same time as the binaries from redistributing the binaries in his or her
possession, unless he or she can still find the source.

The more I think about this though, I'm not sure I want someone's
binaries without the source. The thrust of the FSF and for that
matter the open source movement is *open source*, not gratis
distribution of binary software. Having the source available with the
binaries also provides for at least a minimal audit trail to the
licensing terms of those binaries. If you just download the binaries,
and you can't tie them to source, how to you as a user show that you
have a license to the software?

The real selling proposition of open-source is that it provides better
protection to the person or organization using the software that it
will continue to be available and maintainable. If only the binaries
are available, due either to neglect by or the future absense of the
distributor, this advantage is lost. Witness the recent suggestions
for a 'living will' for the owner of an open source project, it's
motivated by the same idea which is to keep the project alive past the
disinterest or the demise of the originators.

For another, it
requires, in many cases, for those with limited resources to choose
between maintaining an archive of source code with redundant backups for
several years after distributing binaries, or simply not distributing.

Or distributing through a larger entity such as, say, rubyforge or sourceforge.

I definitely prefer the BSD license. It would be better to have access
to a binary with no source than neither (to compare worst-case
scenarios).

Well, you can get lots of that kind of software from organizations
like Microsoft. <G>

Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license's applicability to
derivative works is ambiguous. I still prefer the BSD license over the
GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
violations of GPL terms.

Or one could view it as a wake-up call that keeping open-source open
requires distributing open source.

Of course that's just my opinion.

···

On 3/11/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:

--
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

43

I've been learning FXRuby in the last two months, and you really just have to dive in.

Agreed. FX and FXRuby are indeed great GUI toolkits (this coming from a Qt guy). I simply started using Qt LONG before I ever picked up Ruby, so QtRuby was a natural marriage for me.

Your mileage may vary.

Caleb

44

Are there any lawyers out there who can explain the fascination with all-caps
text in legal documents? Is there a legal interpretation of all-caps text that
is different than mixed-case text?

Gary Wright

···

On Mar 10, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Timothy Hunter wrote:

Albert Ng wrote:

Um, how close is the BSD license to this "my code, don't need to quote me,
do whatever you want with it, but it's consequences are all yours" license?

The text of the BSD license is here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php\.

45

Thanks Hunter, very informative
I must say, that was a considerably non-painful read for a software license

···

On 3/10/07, Timothy Hunter <TimHunter@nc.rr.com> wrote:

Albert Ng wrote:
> Um, how close is the BSD license to this "my code, don't need to quote
> me,
> do whatever you want with it, but it's consequences are all yours"
> license?
>
The text of the BSD license is here:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php\.

46

Eleanor McHugh wrote:

···

On 10 Mar 2007, at 19:00, Albert Ng wrote:

Um, how close is the BSD license to this "my code, don't need to quote me,
do whatever you want with it, but it's consequences are all yours" license?

Well there's always the "public domain", i.e. no license and absolutely no need for attribution. Of course that does require the author to give up their right to place arbitrary restrictions on the dissemination of their work...

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason

Public domain is close to what I want ... however, I think the open source gang has some problems with "public domain". And I want something that says if someone figures out a way to destroy a city with my code that I'm not the one who gets tried for war crimes. :slight_smile:

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.

47

Eleanor McHugh DE I. P.

absolutely no need for attribution.

It's correct only for USA (and probably few other countries). In most
jurisdiction public domain works require attribution.

···

--
I. P. 2007-03-11T19:36

48

>
>Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
>form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license's applicability to
>derivative works is ambiguous. I still prefer the BSD license over the
>GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
>action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
>violations of GPL terms.

I have heard of that and I was quite alarmed about it. I do not
however think that one should forget the importance of GPL and it's
inventor on the paradigm change in society.

Of course -- historical context is important to understanding any trends
and current circumstances, and that context can have a continuing effect
on future developments.

Your points are very valid and understandable, but maybe the defensive
aggressive attitude of the FSF is nothing more than somebody wanting
the rights they are fighting for respected.

I don't consider forced distribution models that ultimately prevent easy
distribution for the least organizationally powerful to qualify as a
"right".

It is however vital to know how far they go for everybody before they
chose their licence and it is a good thing to talk about it often.

Agreed.

···

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:45:03AM +0900, Robert Dober wrote:

On 3/11/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The measure on a man's real character is what he would do
if he knew he would never be found out." - Thomas McCauley

49

>On the other hand, I am *more*
>concerned that the *forced distribution of source code* mandated by the
>GPL is actually more restrictive in practice. For one thing, it
>prevents anyone that didn't have the foresight to get the source at the
>same time as the binaries from redistributing the binaries in his or her
>possession, unless he or she can still find the source.

The more I think about this though, I'm not sure I want someone's
binaries without the source. The thrust of the FSF and for that
matter the open source movement is *open source*, not gratis
distribution of binary software. Having the source available with the
binaries also provides for at least a minimal audit trail to the
licensing terms of those binaries. If you just download the binaries,
and you can't tie them to source, how to you as a user show that you
have a license to the software?

How do you feel about people having a (legally protected) right to
distribute Linux LiveCDs without having to push several CDs full of
source code on the recipients at the same time?

There's a difference between downloading software with the source
available, then later finding that the source for that exact version of
the binary went away, and downloading software when no source is
available. I don't believe that conflating the two situations helps
clear up the legal ramifications of the situation at all.

The real selling proposition of open-source is that it provides better
protection to the person or organization using the software that it
will continue to be available and maintainable. If only the binaries
are available, due either to neglect by or the future absense of the
distributor, this advantage is lost. Witness the recent suggestions
for a 'living will' for the owner of an open source project, it's
motivated by the same idea which is to keep the project alive past the
disinterest or the demise of the originators.

In practice, the source of BSD-licensed software is as easily available
as the source of GPLed software, generally speaking. If the source
disappears, however, you now can't do anything with the binary at all,
except continue to use it -- and, at that point, you have to ensure you
don't accidentally "distribute" it sans source. That's my point.

>For another, it
>requires, in many cases, for those with limited resources to choose
>between maintaining an archive of source code with redundant backups for
>several years after distributing binaries, or simply not distributing.

Or distributing through a larger entity such as, say, rubyforge or
sourceforge.

True -- but if that's the option you choose, you have to stick to it,
and you then entrust some of your data security to someone else.
Sometimes that's an option. Sometimes it's not -- such as when running
package archives for a small community Linux distribution, or even just
for your friends.

>I definitely prefer the BSD license. It would be better to have access
>to a binary with no source than neither (to compare worst-case
>scenarios).

Well, you can get lots of that kind of software from organizations
like Microsoft. <G>

Notice, I don't like worst-case scenario conditions. As such, I happily
use the FreeBSD archives. See how well that works?

>Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
>form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license's applicability to
>derivative works is ambiguous. I still prefer the BSD license over the
>GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
>action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
>violations of GPL terms.

Or one could view it as a wake-up call that keeping open-source open
requires distributing open source.

A social revolution loses some ethical purity when enforced at the point
of a gun -- and that's what the law is: a gun to one's head.

···

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:31:23AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:

On 3/11/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.

50

I don't want to start a war or big debate, but the FSF threatening legal action against little guys is not good, they should be going after bigger fish to pursue their goals. But the idea of forcing everyone else to make free software is a bit extreme. GPL3 is a bit wacked. I respect their place in history, but even reading the FSF coding guidelines sounds like Stallman speaking rather than rational writing. Perhaps his ego has gotten the best of him.

51

Using the License of Ruby (so long as you follow it exactly),
guarentees GPL compatibility while still extending to you users the
choice of a more permissive license, on par with that of the MIT or
BSD licenses.

To me, this is a matter of pragmatic compromise. I'm totally in the
'we can't ignore the GPL' camp but we also shouldn't impose it on
others.

Matz (possibly following Larry Wall's example) has provided a good way
to compromise. Dual licensing is confusing but would be less so if it
became a defacto community standard. (Except in situations where
that's not possible, of course).

···

On 3/12/07, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:

I have heard of that and I was quite alarmed about it. I do not
however think that one should forget the importance of GPL and it's
inventor on the paradigm change in society.

52

Sending the love for Qt back your way. :wink:

All of the "major" GUI toolkits for Ruby are pretty good. They all
have their little quirks, etc. My usual recommendation to folks is to
try out several of them on a little test program and see how it feels.
You also want to consider things like what kinds of documentation
(free or otherwise) and technical support (via forums, IRC, mailing
lists, etc.) is available for those times when you do run into
problems. There's more to a choice like this than merely looking at a
feature list and flipping a coin. :wink:

···

On 3/10/07, Caleb Tennis <caleb@aei-tech.com> wrote:

Agreed. FX and FXRuby are indeed great GUI toolkits (this coming
from a Qt guy). I simply started using Qt LONG before I ever picked
up Ruby, so QtRuby was a natural marriage for me.

53

Albert Ng wrote:

Thanks Hunter, very informative
I must say, that was a considerably non-painful read for a software license

Albert Ng wrote:
> Um, how close is the BSD license to this "my code, don't need to quote
> me,
> do whatever you want with it, but it's consequences are all yours"
> license?
>
The text of the BSD license is here:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php\.

It is very close to the license I use for RMagick. My personal interpretation is "do what you like with this software, but don't lie and say you wrote it."

···

On 3/10/07, Timothy Hunter <TimHunter@nc.rr.com> wrote:

54

Interesting. So in those jurisdictions a widely distributed anonymous work wouldn't count as public domain?

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains

···

On 11 Mar 2007, at 16:39, I. P. wrote:

> absolutely no need for attribution.
It's correct only for USA (and probably few other countries). In most
jurisdiction public domain works require attribution.

----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason

55

That disclaimer is something you can just attach to the code. If
someone later strips the disclaimer and passes it on, THAT person is the
only one liable for the uses of the code (if there's any liability to be
had), generally speaking. Disclaimers are not particular to licenses,
and can be treated as separate entities (in at least most jurisdictions;
keep in mind that I'm speaking from a USian perspective).

The major reason open source advocates dislike public domain is that
openness of the source is not enforceable in later iterations. For
instance, a book in the public domain can, with a few modifications such
as adding a nifty red cover and a preface, become a copyrighted work,
copyrighted by the guy that wrote the preface and added the cover rather
than by the guy who wrote the book itself.

Another, less common complaint (at least, less common in the US) is that
in some jurisdictions there's no such thing as "public domain". France,
for instance, suffers some shortcomings in this regard: you can't
completely free your code (or whatever) from any legal encumbrances at
all whatsoever except by asserting copyright and licensing it with a
statement like "No rights reserved."

My personal preference for licensing is effectively a public domain
duplicating license, plus strong inheritance so that all derivative
works must be similarly licensed. I also tend to prefer strong
protections against plagiarism. That's why I created the CCD CopyWrite
license that I use for basically everything I do where I'm not required
by contract (or other circumstances) to license things otherwise. I'd
just release everything I wrote into the public domain if I wasn't
concerned about people creating derivative works and taking them OUT of
the public domain.

I'm *not* a fan of *forced* distribution models of open source
licensing, by the way -- in case you were curious.

···

On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 01:38:09AM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

Eleanor McHugh wrote:
>On 10 Mar 2007, at 19:00, Albert Ng wrote:
>>Um, how close is the BSD license to this "my code, don't need to
>>quote me,
>>do whatever you want with it, but it's consequences are all yours"
>>license?
>
>Well there's always the "public domain", i.e. no license and
>absolutely no need for attribution. Of course that does require the
>author to give up their right to place arbitrary restrictions on the
>dissemination of their work...
>
Public domain is close to what I want ... however, I think the open
source gang has some problems with "public domain". And I want something
that says if someone figures out a way to destroy a city with my code
that I'm not the one who gets tried for war crimes. :slight_smile:

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"A script is what you give the actors. A program
is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall

56

Oddly enough, licenses that include attribution requirements are legally
often very good choices if you don't want any attribution requirement.
By failing to provide any self-attribution in the copyrightable work
and/or the license, you end up requiring that all existing attribution
(namely, none) be maintained in future redistributions. Public domain,
meanwhile, makes no statement about attribution at all -- which can get
you in hot water if you don't provide any attribution, since it is
generally assumed that even where distribution is not controlled,
attribution is still necessary for an honest representation of the
circumstances of distribution.

···

On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 01:39:23AM +0900, I. P. wrote:

Eleanor McHugh DE I. P.

> absolutely no need for attribution.
It's correct only for USA (and probably few other countries). In most
jurisdiction public domain works require attribution.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
This sig for rent: a Signify v1.14 production from http://www.debian.org/

57

Gentlemen

this is probably a really tough test for our tolerance.

I think that the problem of the FSF is that they needed lawyers and if
you are an anarchist like Chad seems to be and I am to some extent
than you are in big troubles.

The law Chad, is of course a gun on our head, but it is also a gun on
the head of e.g. Microsoft.

Microsoft would have destroyed the market already were it not for some
laws, I think we can agree on this, right?

But I think that the idealistic POV of Rick is a very important one too.
This is a mess and a mess which troubles me a lot.

But Freedom just does not come for free. :frowning:

Cheers
Robert

···

On 3/13/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:31:23AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On 3/11/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
>

--
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw

58

I don't want to start a war or big debate, but the FSF threatening
legal action against little guys is not good, they should be going
after bigger fish to pursue their goals. But the idea of forcing
everyone else to make free software is a bit extreme.

No one is forcing anyone to make free software. The question is
whether one who accepts GPL licensed software and makes derivative
works is bound by the terms of that license. The GPL was crafted so
as to serve the community and ensure that open-source software remains
open-source, and that everyone, developers and users alike get the
benefits of open-source. One of the goals of the GPL is to ensure
that anyone can run, modify, and redistribute GPL licensed code as
long as they accept and execute the terms of the license. In order to
allow modification (which would include, for example porting to
another platform) one needs to be able to get the source code as it
was used to build the program.

As a user, I WANT to be able to re-build the software I use. If
someone offers something without the cooresponding software, I'm leery
of using it.

So if you want to distribute a program without making the source of
included software available, just don't include any GPL licensed
software in it.

And GPL is actually less draconian for "the little guys" than is
popularly thought. Here's the section which requires source code
availability:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Section C allows one to proxy the source code availability for
non-commercial code, for a "little guy" who didn't build his program
using GPL source code. GPLV3 has the same language.

GPL3 is a bit
wacked. I respect their place in history, but even reading the FSF
coding guidelines sounds like Stallman speaking rather than rational
writing. Perhaps his ego has gotten the best of him.

The controversial provisions of GPL3 have nothing to do with the
requirement to provide all source of GPL licensed code with derivative
works (which has always been part of GPL), they have to do with
restrictions on the use of GPL code to implement things like DRM.
However, one is free to continue to offer code based on GPL2 licensed
code. One does need to read the license on code you are using
carefully. Most GPL licensed software licenses it under GPL2 OR any
later version, which allows interpretation using GPL2, but you need to
look for language which either explicitly licenses under GPL3
(probably not much since it's still in draft) or which has wording to
the effect that it's licensed under the latest approved version of the
GPL.

···

On 3/12/07, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

59

No problem this can only be a healthy thing, stretching our tolerance as I
said.

It is normal that some rumors are worrying but what do we really know about
that threats?
Maybe FSF gave them plenty of time to comply to the licence they have chosen
freely.
I also think they should be indulgent but maybe I find time to research a
little bit about these cases and maybe drop them a friendly mail.
I do not think - but may be wrong, I am more than eager to be corrected -
that Stallman himself is still a leading personality in the FSF, if he were
- with all due respect he earns - that would be kind of worrying too.

BTW as Ruby can be licensed under the GPL this is all but OFF TOPIC, I feel.

Cheers
Robert

···

On 3/13/07, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't want to start a war or big debate, but the FSF threatening
legal action against little guys is not good, they should be going
after bigger fish to pursue their goals. But the idea of forcing
everyone else to make free software is a bit extreme. GPL3 is a bit
wacked. I respect their place in history, but even reading the FSF
coding guidelines sounds like Stallman speaking rather than rational
writing. Perhaps his ego has gotten the best of him.

--
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw

60

> The more I think about this though, I'm not sure I want someone's
> binaries without the source. The thrust of the FSF and for that
> matter the open source movement is *open source*, not gratis
> distribution of binary software. Having the source available with the
> binaries also provides for at least a minimal audit trail to the
> licensing terms of those binaries. If you just download the binaries,
> and you can't tie them to source, how to you as a user show that you
> have a license to the software?

How do you feel about people having a (legally protected) right to
distribute Linux LiveCDs without having to push several CDs full of
source code on the recipients at the same time?

That's not requred by the GPL, the requirement is that if you
distribute such a live CD, you need to make the source used to create
it available. You don't need to deliver it concurrently.

There's a difference between downloading software with the source
available, then later finding that the source for that exact version of
the binary went away, and downloading software when no source is
available. I don't believe that conflating the two situations helps
clear up the legal ramifications of the situation at all.

So stop conflating them, the GPL doesn't.

> The real selling proposition of open-source is that it provides better
> protection to the person or organization using the software that it
> will continue to be available and maintainable. If only the binaries
> are available, due either to neglect by or the future absense of the
> distributor, this advantage is lost. Witness the recent suggestions
> for a 'living will' for the owner of an open source project, it's
> motivated by the same idea which is to keep the project alive past the
> disinterest or the demise of the originators.

In practice, the source of BSD-licensed software is as easily available
as the source of GPLed software, generally speaking. If the source
disappears, however, you now can't do anything with the binary at all,
except continue to use it -- and, at that point, you have to ensure you
don't accidentally "distribute" it sans source. That's my point.

The strength of the GPL here is that it requires mechanisms to ensure
that the source continues to remain available.

> >Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
> >form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license's applicability to
> >derivative works is ambiguous. I still prefer the BSD license over the
> >GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
> >action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
> >violations of GPL terms.
>
> Or one could view it as a wake-up call that keeping open-source open
> requires distributing open source.

A social revolution loses some ethical purity when enforced at the point
of a gun -- and that's what the law is: a gun to one's head.

Another way of looking at it is that the law is a tool for protecting
the interests of people in society. The GPL is carefully crafted with
knowledge of global intellectual property law, so as to protect the
right to distribute software with the assurance that others will have
the right to run, modify, and redistribute it in a way such that those
rights will be preserved.

And we've probably argued this to the point where most who hang out
here are no longer interested, if they ever were. :wink:

···

On 3/12/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:31:23AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On 3/11/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:

--
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/