I realize that Ruby 1.8.x code can be at best only obfuscated, not
compiled. So obviously created a closed source product with Ruby would
be out of the question. Even a Ruby 2.0 YARV bytecode-compiled product
could be reverse engineered, as is the case with Python offerings. But
just because something is commercial doesn't _necessarily_ mean that
it's closed source, does it?

Now that splitting hairs has run its course, back to our original
programming :-/

Ken Bloom wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 07:37:01 -0700, gregarican wrote:
> > o - Are licensing terms a concern? Qt isn't totally 100% free, open
> > source software if you are using it for commercial purposes.
>
> You've gotta ask yourself, though: how would you protect a commerical
> investment in an interpreted language that can't even be compiled to
> bytecode?
>
> --
> Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
> Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
> http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
> I've added a signing subkey to my GPG key. Please update your keyring.