[ruby-core:31995] Re: Change Ruby's License to BSDL + Ruby's dual license

(2010/09/01 17:02), Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 01/09/10 at 03:13 +0900, NARUSE, Yui wrote:
>> 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

It is 4.:
   4. You may modify and include the part of the software into any other
      software (possibly commercial).  But some files in the distribution
      are not written by the author, so that they are not under these terms.

      For the list of those files and their copying conditions, see the
      file LEGAL.
http://svn.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/trunk/COPYING?revision=25184&view=markup

Once the code is included by other code, and it is free from Ruby's License.

> 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).

No, the main clause for the permission to redistribute modified versions is
allowed by 2.a).

> 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.

This is long term problem; Matz said "Ruby's License is not good for new
software" in his diary at 2003-06-07.
http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/20030607.html#p06

And we are facing real problem from the time GPLv3 published.
This effects distributors for both Ruby and Readline6.
So we should resolve it in near future.

Changing Ruby's License from dual with GPLv2 to dual with BSDL is
considered no side effect because of looseness of Ruby's License.
So it must be a reasonable solution.

Yes, your proposal: change to BSDL single license is good point.
But it has some side effect:
* lost non-standard name clause 2.c) and 3.c)
* lost "arrangements with the author" clause 2.d) and 3.d)
* lost 4.
If someone uses those clause, they can't update the code from Ruby.
So such change needs more care.
But we are not interesting about having any exclusive rights;
we don't need such restriction.

-- 
NARUSE, Yui  <[e-mail]>