[ruby-core:25364] Re: [Feature #2032] Change the license to "GPLv2+ or Ruby's original".

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Shyouhei Urabe<[e-mail]> wrote=
:
> Issue #2032 has been updated by Shyouhei Urabe.
>
>
> My understanding is that if ruby links to readline6, not only ruby itself=
 is "tainted" by GPLv3, but also other libraries that ruby links, such as o=
penssl, zlib, mysql adaper, are also tainted. =A0I don't think it being rea=
listic for library authors such as openssl people to accept that situation.

I think that is correct.  But this is true of using any GPL2 library
as well.  Unless you make the feature optional and isolated from the
rest of the code, it will cause Ruby to in effect, be GPLed. (And not
simply dual licensed).

AFAIK, the general rule of thumb is that dual licensing gives a choice
to consumers, but project maintainers must abide by all of their
licenses simultaneously.
Linking to GPLed code prevents Matz's terms from actually being an
option in that case.

But using a GPL3 library is problematic for a different reason.  It is
not compatible with GPL2, nor is it compatible with Matz's license.
:-/
So essentially, adding a "Matz's Terms, GPL2, or GPL3" clause would
only allow people extending Ruby to choose to GPL3 their code, not
allow Ruby itself to link to GPL3 code.

(Hope my understanding is correct here, open to hearing from those who
know more about this)

-greg