[#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:30782] Re: [Feature #2032] Change the license to "GPLv2+ or Ruby's original".

From: Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...>
Date: 2010-06-16 19:25:02 UTC
List: ruby-core #30782
Hi,

2010/6/16 mathew <meta@pobox.com>:
> However, I haven't seen a FSF statement as to whether distributing GPL2 c=
ode that links with GPL3 code is a violation.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility

> Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?
>
>    No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement
>    to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As
>    a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to
>    combine code released under both these licenses, you would
>    violate section 6 of GPLv2.


> My take is that so long as the code is written to be linked with readline=
5 and only tested and supported with readline5, that's what it's a derivati=
ve of. Just state that clearly where the list of required libraries is in t=
he documentation,.
>
> If the developers of readline6 have made that library compatible enough w=
ith 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 yo=
u're intentionally using. You can't be held to a new license just because s=
omeone decides to substitute readline5 with something else that's API-compa=
tible but has a new license.

I entirely agree with you.  We have no legal responsibility to care
readline6, I believe.

However, some people (including Matz [ruby-dev:39178] and Shyouhei
Urabe [ruby-core:30652]) think that it is "dishonest" to get along
with the status quo after we found out about readline6.
I don't deny that we have "moral" responsibility about readline6.



But now, I'm not sure if the note about readline6 really complies
with Ruby License, especially the section 6 of GPLv2:

> You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise o=
f the rights granted herein.

The note restricts the link with readline6.  Isn't it "any further
restrictions"?  I don't know.  Shyouhei, let me ask your opinion.

--=20
Yusuke Endoh <mame@tsg.ne.jp>

In This Thread