[#30589] [Bug #3391] Use single exclamation mark instead of double exclamation mark for IRB — Diego Viola <redmine@...>

Bug #3391: Use single exclamation mark instead of double exclamation mark for IRB

10 messages 2010/06/04

[#30672] [Bug #3411] Time.local 1916,5,1 #=> 1916-04-30 23:00:00 +0100 — Benoit Daloze <redmine@...>

Bug #3411: Time.local 1916,5,1 #=> 1916-04-30 23:00:00 +0100

12 messages 2010/06/08

[#30699] [Bug #3419] 1.9.2-preview3 possible bug with Rails 3 active_record sqlite_adapter — Joe Sak <redmine@...>

Bug #3419: 1.9.2-preview3 possible bug with Rails 3 active_record sqlite_adapter

9 messages 2010/06/09

[#30734] [Bug #3428] ri outputs ansi escape sequences even when stdout is not a tty — caleb clausen <redmine@...>

Bug #3428: ri outputs ansi escape sequences even when stdout is not a tty

11 messages 2010/06/11

[#30756] [Feature #3436] Spawn the timer thread lazily — Maximilian Gass <redmine@...>

Feature #3436: Spawn the timer thread lazily

15 messages 2010/06/13
[#32686] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#3436] Spawn the timer thread lazily — Mark Somerville <redmine@...> 2010/10/04

Issue #3436 has been updated by Mark Somerville.

[ruby-core:30769] Re: [Feature #2032] Change the license to "GPLv2+ or Ruby's original".

From: Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...>
Date: 2010-06-15 03:48:07 UTC
List: ruby-core #30769
Hi,

2010/6/15 mathew <meta@pobox.com>:
> The GNU Public License is *not* an EULA. You do not have to agree to
> it in order to download and use GPL-licensed software. As David Jones
> points out at <http://drj11.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/the-gnu-gpl-is-not-an-eula/>,
> the license itself states that "Activities other than copying,
> distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they
> are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not
> restricted".


I think you are right in your perspective.
But the problem is, "can the core team distribute Ruby?"

We actually distribute Ruby with readline binding.
A user may link the binding with readline6, which we do not intend.
If it is allowed, we can distribute a product using GPLv3 library
with license that is imcompatible with GPLv3, I guess.
Even so, can we distribute Ruby without the note prohibiting such
a link?


IMHO, I agree with your opinion, but I'm not a lawyer.  I cannot
determine.  License issue sucks.

-- 
Yusuke Endoh <mame@tsg.ne.jp>

In This Thread