[ruby-core:30776] Re: [Feature #2032] Change the license to "GPLv2+ or Ruby's original".

On 6/15/10 7:48 PM, mathew wrote:
> 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?"
>>
>> 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
>    
Or even linenoise. A minimal, zero-config, BSD licensed, readline 
replacement.
http://github.com/antirez/linenoise