From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...>
Date: 2010-09-01T17:02:04+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:31991] Re: Change Ruby's License to BSDL + Ruby's dual license

On 01/09/10 at 03:13 +0900, NARUSE, Yui wrote:
> (2010/09/01 2:36), Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >On 01/09/10 at 01:30 +0900, NARUSE, Yui wrote:
> >>Ruby's License will change to BSDL + Ruby's dual license
> >>
> >>== Background
> >>
> >>Ruby's License, which is used as the license of Ruby and other related software,
> >>says it is dual license: GPLv2 or Ruby's in a narrow sense.
> >>
> >>But it has following problems:
> >>* it is not compatible with GPLv3
> >>* a modest person can't port Ruby's code into BSDL
> >>* a greed person can port Ruby's code into public domain
> >>   (use quotation clause)
> >>
> >>So copyleft spirit of Ruby's License is the barrier to BSDL,
> >>but can't effect to modified codes.
> >>
> >>== Change
> >>
> >>current: GPLv2 + Ruby's
> >>new: BSDL + Ruby's
> >
> >That's the 3-clause BSD license, not the 4-clause one, right?
> 
> 2-clause.
> I added it in [ruby-core:31972], sorry for confusing.
> 
> >>== Merit
> >>
> >>* you can use Ruby with GPLv3 software
> >>* you can port Ruby's code into BSDL code	
> >>
> >>== Demerit
> >>
> >>nothing: because people can everything with change the name or quotation clause.
> >
> >May I ask why you did not completely drop the Ruby licence, and only use
> >BSD ? Since the BSD is the more permissive of the two, everybody not
> >following the Ruby license can instead follow the BSD license anyway.
> >And it would make the whole licensing situation much simpler.
> 
> Ruby's License permits users to include Ruby's code into their code
> without any copyright notice of Ruby.
> So "the BSD is the more permissive of the two" is wrong.

I don't find this in the Ruby license. I read:
verbatim redistribution -> keep copyright notices
redistribution after modification -> doesn't say anything about
  copyright notices

Also, in general, I have the impression that the Ruby license is not
very well written. For example, the permission to redistribute modified
versions in never explicitely granted (it is implicitely granted by
2.b).
I would recommend not rushing that decision: licensing changes are
painful decisions, and it would be much better if in the end, the Ruby
licensing situation was clarified. I would personally prefer a switch to
either GPL V2+, or BSD, without any dual licensing clause.

Some organizations could provide legal counsel on this, like the
Software Freedom Law Center.

- Lucas