[ruby-core:30775] Re: [Feature #2032] Change the license to "GPLv2+ or Ruby's original".

On Jun 14, 2010, at 22:48, Yusuke ENDOH wrote:
> I think you are right in your perspective.
> But the problem is, "can the core team distribute Ruby?"
>=20
> 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?

I don't believe there's any legal precedent to determine this.

The FSF believes that if your code requires that a GPL library be linked =
with it, then your code is derivative of the GPL library, and must also =
fall under the GPL.

However, I haven't seen a FSF statement as to whether distributing GPL2 =
code that links with GPL3 code is a violation.

My take is that so long as the code is written to be linked with =
readline5 and only tested and supported with readline5, that's what it's =
a derivative of. Just state that clearly where the list of required =
libraries is in the documentation,.

If the developers of readline6 have made that library compatible enough =
with earlier versions that it can be used as a substitute, that's up to =
them, but you're only required to fall under the same license as the =
library you're intentionally using. You can't be held to a new license =
just because someone decides to substitute readline5 with something else =
that's API-compatible but has a new license.

Having said all of that... I'd welcome Ruby being released under GPL v3. =
If that cannot be done, or is not deemed desirable by Matz, then the =
best option is probably to start migrating from readline to libeditline:
http://s11n.net/editline/


mathew=