No problem Rusty! The code is raw and I hate it. I'll be improving on it as I go along. I also have to finish tournaments this month, been putting it off for ages!
No one used "open source" to describe stuff with the source code available until the term came out to describe free software with a marketing friendly name. People who use 'open source' to describe what is proprietary code with source available are often just trying to confuse things. To be clear, he is not doing that, he's just using 'open', which is fair game, I suppose.
The term "Open" was used for non open source software many years ago - I think in the mid/late nineties there was a rash of it. If anything it was meant to imply "flexible", "new and fresh" and in rare cases, using open standards or able to be integrated with (often in the context of enterprise ERP type of stuff I am thinking mainly).
Not that its a good thing, but it does kind of have a precedent, FWIW ;)
This is quite an interesting piece of software, however I keep wondering why it remains so restricted when it comes to licensing.
Also, do you still plan on working on a Ruby version of OpenPoker? I am quite interested in how you would go about designing such software with Ruby, since there isn't really an OTP-equivalent.
"Also, do you still plan on working on a Ruby version of OpenPoker? I am quite interested in how you would go about designing such software with Ruby, since there isn't really an OTP-equivalent."
15 comments
[ 6.7 ms ] story [ 183 ms ] threadNot to mention Open Source (proper) hardly has a monopoly on the "Open" prefix.
Not that its a good thing, but it does kind of have a precedent, FWIW ;)
I only mention this because it is pertinent to the reason why I am up at this hour reading Hacker News.
Also, do you still plan on working on a Ruby version of OpenPoker? I am quite interested in how you would go about designing such software with Ruby, since there isn't really an OTP-equivalent.
Thanks.
But... why?