GUI With Ruby

ruby-talk
61

Hello Group!

Although I don't regularly don't program much, mainly due to time, I also
would like to find an easy way to use GUI within my Ruby programs.
I tried several toolkits, but I end up expending so much time dealing with
the GUI widgets that I eventually give up altogether. I would like some kind
of GUI environment in which I can just grab a widget (i.e. a drop-down-list
or a radio button, Etc.) and drop it exactly where I want it to be.
I normally hate to pay for software if I can get it for free (but legally),
but something like this drag and drop GUI fro Ruby I would be willing to pay
for.
But, I've been waiting now for a few years and nothing yet! And I don't have
the skills to write it myself. Oh Well, the story of my life!

Victor

···

On 3/10/07, Lyle Johnson <lyle.johnson@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

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:

62

Eleanor McHugh 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.

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

Ellie

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

To be honest, in the U.S. I would not consider anonymous works to be in the public domain unless there was some very visible and carefully worded statement that the work was in the public domain, such as seen here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/\. The reason is that in the U.S. all "creative" works (including software) are automatically protected by copyright, even if the copyright holder is not known. This of course produces huge numbers of abandoned works that can't be used and is amazingly stupid, but it's the law.

···

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

63

Eleanor McHugh DE I. P.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

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

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

US law defines public domain as (according to [1]) "the Work may be
freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built
upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial or
non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not yet
been invented or conceived"

Berne Convention [2] standing as base for international copyright law
(signed by 162 countries [3]) had defined so called "Moral Rights"
[2.1]. This rights are independent from author's rights to sell,
modify and so on ("economical rights") which she can pass to other
entities.

Moral Rights are assigned automatically by the fact of creating an
artistic work. By creating you receive right "to claim authorship of
the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other
modification <...> the said work <...>" [2.1]. This rights are
inalienable: you can't reject to be under protection. US has neglected
concept of inalienable Moral Rights.

So US public domain works are not necessary public domain, e. g., in
Europe.

Now to anonymous work.

As mentioned above, moral right are assigned automatically regardless
of author. Anonymous (and pseudonymous) works are protected by the
same laws with one exception: if author's name can't be determined
with confidence then this work is protected for 50 years since it's
been lawfully made available to public. [2.2]

If anonymous/pseudonymous author has claimed his identity he receive
standard protection for his life and 50 years after (this period can
be extended in his country).

···

---
[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
[2] BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC
WORKS: BERNE CONVENTION, AS REVISED
[2.1] BERNE CONVENTION, AS REVISED - Article 6bis
[2.2] BERNE CONVENTION, AS REVISED - Article 7
[3] List of parties to international copyright agreements - Wikipedia

--
I. P. 2007-03-11T22:05

64

If it's public domain *and anonymous*, one typically would cover one's
backside by attributing it to "anonymous" or similarly indicating that
the source is unknown. Anonymity doesn't make something other than
public domain, but failure to indicate attribution can get one in legal
trouble with even public domain works in certain circumstances.

···

On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:28:46AM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:

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.

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

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Brian K. Reid: "In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."

65

That might be so, but they have the delete button, while I think that those
who have the time and energy to follow it get rewarded with your POV (and
the other POVs too don't hit me Chad ;).

Robert

···

On 3/13/07, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:

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:

> > 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:

--

Rick DeNatale

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

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

66

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

That's kind of a facile argument. One could as easily say that anyone
can run, modify, and redistribute ANY code as long as one accepts and
executes the terms of the license under which it is distributed. A
Microsoft EULA can be inserted into that sentence -- as long as you
abide by the EULA's restrictions and the requirements of copyright law,
you may run, modify, and redistribute the software according to those
requirements.

In the case of the Microsoft EULA, you can run it if you've paid for it,
modify it if you get Microsoft's permission, and distribute if you
haven't actually opened the packaging. In the case of the GPL, you can
run it if you have it in your possession, modifiy it if you have the
source code, and distribute it if you have the source code and are
willing and able to provide source code immediately or (at the
receiver's option) up to three years afterward.

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 am I. That's sorta beside the point of whether it's a good idea to
enforce source code distribution.

   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.

. . . and if you receive a free Ubuntu CD, it sits on your shelf for a
few months after you've installed it, and you have a friend that is then
interested in trying out this Linux thing, you can give it to him. He,
on the other hand, either needs to track down the source code or burn
the CD, rather than just pass on the CD to someone else. So much for
"community".

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.

The "don't use the GPL if you don't like it" argument doesn't in any way
prove the GPL is any better. It just hinders code reuse. It's
irrelevant to whether or not the GPL is a good license.

According to the Free Software Foundation's list of Four Freedoms:

    * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
    * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access
to the source code is a precondition for this.

. . . makes at least two things very clear:

  1. The GPL materially violates the third freedom ("Freedom 2"),
  because it restricts one's ability to distribute copies of a program
  under certain, by no means rare, circumstances. Instead, one must
  jump through procedural hoops or expend resources to get the software
  into the hands of a recipient.

  2. The FSF is definitely more interested in "freedom" than "rights".
  Yes, possession of source code is necessary for the "freedom" to
  modify the source code, if by "freedom" you also mean "ability" rather
  than just freedom from legal restrictions. No, possession of source
  code is not in any way necessary to have the *right* to modify source
  code in your possession, and no, forcing someone to distribute source
  code does not grant anyone any extra rights -- in fact, it limits the
  rights of the would-be distributor, telling him he cannot dispose of
  what he has in his possession as he sees fit.

I really don't see any particular need to continue pursuing this
discussion on this list. It's pretty irrelevant to Ruby. It would be
nice if, just once, a GPL advocate would admit that what I'm saying here
is true -- rather than trying to snowball people with phrases like "You
have the freedom to avoid GPL code," or "You aren't as free if you don't
have the source code," or something like that. It's a little like the
arguments for communism that go something like "How can you be free if
you don't have the freedom to make use of someone else's money?" or
whatever's in vogue these days. There are valid arguments for both
communism and the GPL -- but arguments like the above don't qualify.

A useful, valid response to my initial statements about the GPL, to the
effect that I'm more concerned with the restrictions the GPL places on
me than the so-called freedoms, would be to say that you're more
concerned with the restrictions on the distribution of source code that
exist without a license like the GPL than with the restrictions *of* the
GPL. Trying to claim the GPL doesn't really restrict you in any
meaningful way, or that the restrictions are for my own good, don't cut
it -- as I've tried to point out.

All you really need to do to refute my argument is tell me that you
reject the idea that I have a right to dispose of what's in my
possession as I see fit. I'll disagree, but at least it will be clear
there's no common ground, which is a better outcome than trying to
convince me that somehow the GPL's restrictions on how I dispose of
what's in my possession actually frees me from restrictions on how I
dispose of what's in my possession.

···

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:17:15PM +0900, Rick DeNatale 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

67

>
>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.

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?

Quite a bit, if you were following the news on the subject at the time.
I'm sure you could confirm the details pretty easily -- an FSF
spokesperson would probably even give you some official position paper
on the subject if you asked persistently (and politely) enough. Be
aware there'd be spin on it -- but I'm pretty sure you could pick out
the relevant facts. You could then compare it for points of agreement
and a different perspective with information from the MEPIS project and
other Linux distributions who have been at the wrong end of the FSF's
stick. That's all assuming that the information that was once online is
now not so easily accessible -- I know that at least one source of
information has been taken down (a MEPIS project posting about the
subject was replaced with GPL compliance FAQ, or something to that
effect).

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.

Excellent. Let me know how that works out for you, please.

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

Good point -- but I guess I can see the opposing perspective as well,
that it is sort of off topic. Sort of.

···

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:02:36PM +0900, Robert Dober wrote:

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

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to
build programs out of the wrong concepts." - Paul Graham

68

>>
>
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.

Heh. I'm not an anarchist -- haven't been since shortly after high
school, when I came to some conclusions about power vacuums, and
abandoned my previously anarcho-capitalist leanings in favor of a
principled libertarian minarchism (yes, political science is a hobby of
mine). I guess one might consider me something of an anarchist where
"intellectual property" law is concerned, though. If someone isn't
using or threatening violence, or perpetuating fraud, I don't think his
or her actions should be illegal. Period.

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

A gun should be employed as a weapon of defense. When it is used
offensively, it is used improperly. That's my take on the matter. That
means that if someone employs force (physical, potential, or deceptive)
to enforce his or her will over your own, that person is acting in an
unethical manner, and force is an appropriate response.

I don't see that justification holding up for enforced source code
distribution. Since you started analyzing my statements somewhat, I
figured I'd offer you some more information on the thought behind them.

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

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Microsoft would have tanked a long time
ago, if it weren't for some *other* laws.

···

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:55:18PM +0900, Robert Dober wrote:

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:

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of
others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any
Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."

69

>> 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.

No . . . but it's *easier* to distribute it immediately, for a single
lone individual, than to maintain a publicly-available point of contact
with source code archives and redundant backups for a period of no less
than three years' time after the date of the last binary distribution of
the software. Your objection is a bit like saying that if you get an
infected cut, you don't have to use Bactine or iodine on it -- you can
always just saw off your arm. Thank you, Doctor, I think I'd rather use
Bactine, or *not get cut*.

>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.

. . .

In light of the history of this discussion, that's pure sophistry.
Thank you for divesting my statement of any context, then reversing my
meaning. Congratulations.

>> 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.

. . . and the weakness of it (as I said) is that in many cases the GPL's
requirements impose a minimum limit on the resources one must have
available to distribute software. Those mechanisms often are not free
(as in beer).

>> >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.

The law is a tool of protection because of the force with which it is
backed up. When that force is applied to those innocent of wrongdoing,
the gun to the head is a bad thing; when applied to those guilty of
wrongdoing, it's protective of the innocent. I wasn't saying the law is
necessarily bad -- just that it's a gun to the head. Some people need a
gun to the head. Some do not. The GPL makes some assumptions about who
needs a gun to his or her head that I find profoundly disturbing in its
implications.

By the way, as I said in another subthread, the FSF, with the GPL as its
weapon, is pushing "freedoms", not rights. One need not have possession
of a thing to have the right to redistribute it -- only to have the
ability, which one might consider a component of the "freedom" to
redistribute depending on how one defines "freedom". Please don't
confuse "right" with "ability" or "freedom".

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

Heh. Well, yes, that's likely the case. That's what threading mail
user agents and email clients are for, though.

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

I just noticed this. I'll have to check it out.

···

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:03:19PM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:

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:

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

70

Victor Reyes wrote:

I would like some
kind of GUI environment in which I can just grab a widget (i.e. a
drop-down-list or a radio button, Etc.) and drop it exactly where I want it
to be. [...]
But, I've been waiting now for a few years and nothing yet! And I don't
have the skills to write it myself. Oh Well, the story of my life!

Don't the qt designer (fot qt) and glade (for gtk) do what you want?

···

--
NP: Katatonia - Right Into The Bliss
Ist so, weil ist so
Bleibt so, weil war so

71

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

Neither am I.

Berne Convention [2] standing as base for international copyright law
(signed by 162 countries [3]) had defined so called "Moral Rights"
[2.1]. This rights are independent from author's rights to sell,
modify and so on ("economical rights") which she can pass to other
entities.

Moral Rights are assigned automatically by the fact of creating an
artistic work. By creating you receive right "to claim authorship of
the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other
modification <...> the said work <...>" [2.1]. This rights are
inalienable: you can't reject to be under protection. US has neglected
concept of inalienable Moral Rights.

Only insofar as the Berne Convention applies this concept of "Moral
Rights" to copyright law. Considering that I reject the notion of
copyright as having anything to do with morality, I don't have a problem
with that. Only attribution rights would qualify, in my estimation, as
being related to an "inalienable right".

···

On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:41:09AM +0900, I. P. 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

72

Well you learn something new every day :slight_smile:
I must find out if the situation is similar here in the UK.

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains

···

On 11 Mar 2007, at 19:29, Timothy Hunter wrote:

Eleanor McHugh wrote:

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.

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

To be honest, in the U.S. I would not consider anonymous works to be in the public domain unless there was some very visible and carefully worded statement that the work was in the public domain, such as seen here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/\. The reason is that in the U.S. all "creative" works (including software) are automatically protected by copyright, even if the copyright holder is not known. This of course produces huge numbers of abandoned works that can't be used and is amazingly stupid, but it's the law.

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

73

I've often thought that Heinlein's "Coventry", which deals with this
topic, ought to be required reading somewhere in a child's school
career.

martin

···

On 3/14/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:

Heh. I'm not an anarchist -- haven't been since shortly after high
school, when I came to some conclusions about power vacuums, and

74

> >>
> >
> 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.

Heh. I'm not an anarchist -- haven't been since shortly after high
school, when I came to some conclusions about power vacuums, and
abandoned my previously anarcho-capitalist leanings in favor of a
principled libertarian minarchism (yes, political science is a hobby of
mine). I guess one might consider me something of an anarchist where
"intellectual property" law is concerned, though. If someone isn't
using or threatening violence, or perpetuating fraud, I don't think his
or her actions should be illegal. Period.

That is a reasonable position well explained. Sorry for using a word
which can be easily missintrepreted, that was not the best expression
I used.

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

A gun should be employed as a weapon of defense. When it is used
offensively, it is used improperly. That's my take on the matter. That
means that if someone employs force (physical, potential, or deceptive)
to enforce his or her will over your own, that person is acting in an
unethical manner, and force is an appropriate response.

It was your metaphor, not mine;) I am against guns (and knives for
that matter) in general.

I don't see that justification holding up for enforced source code
distribution.

Please do not insist that it is enforced it is your choice to use the
licence or not.
Continue the good work of pointing the restrictions of the GPL out,
but I feel that you are unjust on this little point, forgive me my
bluntness.

If you really think it is enforced - though I really do not see why -
well than I will not argue about it anymore but I feel that you make
mistake on that point.

Since you started analyzing my statements somewhat, I

figured I'd offer you some more information on the thought behind them.

You are right that is one of my many bad habits, I can see that now.

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

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Microsoft would have tanked a long time
ago, if it weren't for some *other* laws.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of
others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any
Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."

Cheers
Robert

···

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

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:55:18PM +0900, Robert Dober wrote:
> 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:

--
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

75

> >
> >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.
>
> 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?

Quite a bit, if you were following the news on the subject at the time.
I'm sure you could confirm the details pretty easily -- an FSF
spokesperson would probably even give you some official position paper
on the subject if you asked persistently (and politely) enough. Be
aware there'd be spin on it -- but I'm pretty sure you could pick out
the relevant facts. You could then compare it for points of agreement
and a different perspective with information from the MEPIS project and
other Linux distributions who have been at the wrong end of the FSF's
stick. That's all assuming that the information that was once online is
now not so easily accessible -- I know that at least one source of
information has been taken down (a MEPIS project posting about the
subject was replaced with GPL compliance FAQ, or something to that
effect).

> 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.

Excellent. Let me know how that works out for you, please.

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

Good point -- but I guess I can see the opposing perspective as well,
that it is sort of off topic. Sort of.

Well there were worse threads concerning OTness :wink:

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to
build programs out of the wrong concepts." - Paul Graham

Right now I see that this really goes to your heart, I appreciate and
respect people who speak out loudly what they feel.

I will take a brake now, it is not fair anyway two against one, that
is Rick & Robert against Chad.

I still feel that the GPL can be the right thing, especially for Ruby
code, which is source anyway. When it comes to Linuxen there are many
potential problems.

I will come back to you OL when/if I have learnt more about it. We
have a very anti-FSF guy in the office I will have some good talks
with him and then do my research.

For me that was a very good thread (can you hear the violins? :wink:
sorry if I made you angry with my direct approach.

Cheers
Robert

···

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

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:02:36PM +0900, Robert Dober wrote:
> On 3/13/07, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@gmail.com> wrote:

--
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

76

> >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.

No . . . but it's *easier* to distribute it immediately, for a single
lone individual, than to maintain a publicly-available point of contact
with source code archives and redundant backups for a period of no less
than three years' time after the date of the last binary distribution of
the software.

It's often easier to do all kinds of things which are either illegal,
or in this case breach a contract.

Let me point out a case where the GPL did some good. When Linksys put
out the WRT-54G router, they 'neglected' to tell anyone that the
firmware was based on linux and other open source GPL licensed
software. That fact came to light when a hacker discovered a security
hole in one of the diagnostic pages which allowed execution of shell
commands by clever manipulation of an input field for a ping address.

When this was discovered, pressure on LinkSys to honor their license
under the GPL led to the release of the source code which led in turn
to community based software, like OpenWRT, for that and other similar
wireless routers.

You seem to be ignoring my point which is that the GPL does not
require source code to be packages with a live CD or any other
packaging, only that such a distribution tell the recipient where the
source code can be obtained.

Your objection is a bit like saying that if you get an
infected cut, you don't have to use Bactine or iodine on it -- you can
always just saw off your arm. Thank you, Doctor, I think I'd rather use
Bactine, or *not get cut*.

I don't follow the analogy,

    cut = distribute GPL binaries?
    infection = have to distribute source?
    bactine = distribute source?
    saw off your arm = ???

I wasn't actually objecting to anything, I was trying to answer your
question about LiveCDs by pointing out that the GPL doesn't require
bundling source code, which seemed to be your implication.

>
> >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.

. . .

In light of the history of this discussion, that's pure sophistry.
Thank you for divesting my statement of any context, then reversing my
meaning. Congratulations.

I THOUGHT that your statement starting with "There's a difference
between downloading software.." was restating your opinion that the
GPL required distribution of source whenever binaries were
distributed, and that this was the conflation. Re-reading it I now
realize that I don't even understand what that statement means.

> >> 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.

. . . and the weakness of it (as I said) is that in many cases the GPL's
requirements impose a minimum limit on the resources one must have
available to distribute software. Those mechanisms often are not free
(as in beer).

And the GPL is not about making software free as in beer, it's about
making software free as in freedom.

You are free to use GPL software as you wish. If you create a
derivative work, you must not distribute that derivative work without
also making all of the GPL source code needed to compile that
derivative work available.

The argument against following the GPL license terms seems to me to be
something like arguing that one should be able to live in a
jurisdiction and be selective in which of the laws of that community
one obeys. It might be more convenient NOT to pay taxes, but...

Now I've gotten your point that YOU prefer the BSD license. That's
your right. My only goal has been to clear up some misconceptions
about what the GPL requires, and has always required, and what it
doesn't require.

···

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

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:03:19PM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> 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/

77

I'm a huge fan of Heinlein, but I haven't read that one. I'll take this
as a recommendation, and hunt through used book stores for it at some
point in the near future.

···

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:15:46AM +0900, Martin DeMello wrote:

On 3/14/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
>
>Heh. I'm not an anarchist -- haven't been since shortly after high
>school, when I came to some conclusions about power vacuums, and

I've often thought that Heinlein's "Coventry", which deals with this
topic, ought to be required reading somewhere in a child's school
career.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"There comes a time in the history of any project when it becomes necessary
to shoot the engineers and begin production." - MacUser, November 1990

78

Please take this discussion off list. It's far beyond gone.

···

On 3/13/07, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:

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

> A gun should be employed as a weapon of defense. When it is used
> offensively, it is used improperly. That's my take on the matter. That
> means that if someone employs force (physical, potential, or deceptive)
> to enforce his or her will over your own, that person is acting in an
> unethical manner, and force is an appropriate response.
>
It was your metaphor, not mine;) I am against guns (and knives for
that matter) in general.

79

>
Right now I see that this really goes to your heart, I appreciate and
respect people who speak out loudly what they feel.

I'm sure you'd appreciate and respect me quite a bit, right up to the
point where you got tired of it. I've never been one to give way to
what I know to be wrong (though some might say my "knowing" is
incorrect).

I will take a brake now, it is not fair anyway two against one, that
is Rick & Robert against Chad.

I don't mind so much. I'm often in a minority position in such debates,
because it's usually only where I agree with the minority that I see a
real need to speak up. When I'm in the majority, I tend to want to read
the opposing viewpoint for ideas that may have escaped my analysis,
rather than simply silence it.

I still feel that the GPL can be the right thing, especially for Ruby
code, which is source anyway. When it comes to Linuxen there are many
potential problems.

I will come back to you OL when/if I have learnt more about it. We
have a very anti-FSF guy in the office I will have some good talks
with him and then do my research.

I sometimes find myself as opposed to the viewpoints of anti-FSF guys,
because too often they're really kind of anti-FLOSS in general.
Hopefully that's not the sort of person you have available to you at
work.

For me that was a very good thread (can you hear the violins? :wink:
sorry if I made you angry with my direct approach.

You didn't. I appreciate it when someone offers a different perspective
on my own opinions, as long as that perspective doesn't become
repetitive and obstinate rather than thoughtful and well-reasoned.

···

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 06:02:27AM +0900, Robert Dober wrote:

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"It's just incredible that a trillion-synapse computer could actually
spend Saturday afternoon watching a football game." - Marvin Minsky

80

>
>I don't see that justification holding up for enforced source code
>distribution.
Please do not insist that it is enforced it is your choice to use the
licence or not.
Continue the good work of pointing the restrictions of the GPL out,
but I feel that you are unjust on this little point, forgive me my
bluntness.

Source code distribution is enforced any time you choose to distribute
binaries, with certain edge-case exceptions. I chose to refer to it
with a succinct term, rather than explain the whole of the matter by
passing around a paragraph like a closure in my discussion of the
matter. Please make an effort to understand my intended meaning when
reading my words.

Since you started analyzing my statements somewhat, I
>figured I'd offer you some more information on the thought behind them.

You are right that is one of my many bad habits, I can see that now.

I didn't mean to give you the impression that I disapproved. Feel free
to question, or draw conclusions from, my statements -- just don't be
surprised if you make an assumption and I correct it. No biggie.

···

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:10:24AM +0900, Robert Dober wrote:

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

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"There comes a time in the history of any project when it becomes necessary
to shoot the engineers and begin production." - MacUser, November 1990