From: Gregory Brown Date: 2009-09-03T22:04:48+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:25318] Re: [Feature #2032] Change the license to "GPLv2+ or Ruby's original". On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Eleanor McHugh wrote: > On 3 Sep 2009, at 02:18, Eric Hodel wrote: >> >> Issue #2032 has been updated by Eric Hodel. >> >> >> On my platforms (OS X and FreeBSD) there is no GNU readline, instead >> libedit is used which is not GPL licensed (no compatibility problem). >> >> Why not change to a less restrictive license like MIT? > > Hasn't the Ruby License traditionally been an MIT-style license? Seems a lot > more appropriate for the reference implementation of a general purpose > programming language than the GPL. The trouble is that the Ruby License (on its own) is not considered a free software license by the FSF, which makes it incompatible with the GPL. The only thing that makes Ruby free software in the eyes of the FSF is the fact that it is dual licensed. Dual licensing is in some sense appealing because while consumers of Ruby are free to do with it what they please, the maintainers are in essence promising that you will always be able use the GPL for your projects that extend core Ruby (as they're required to keep in compliance with the GPL despite the dual license). Of course, this is something that can be upheld even under an MIT license, but it wouldn't be a guarantee in writing. In some communities, that's a sore spot for folks. In Ruby, I'm not sure that it is, so a more simple arrangement might not be a bad thing. -greg