From: "NARUSE, Yui" Date: 2010-09-02T02:39:34+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:32000] Re: Change Ruby's License to BSDL + Ruby's dual license (2010/09/01 23:41), Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 01/09/10 at 23:18 +0900, NARUSE, Yui wrote: >> 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) > > Those are additional restrictions. They are actually void, because the > modifier or the redistributor could just choice to place its work under > BSL. Distributor A can modify Ruby's code and distribute under the name other than Ruby. Distributor B, who get the code from distributor A, can distribute under the name of Ruby. So this is not additional restrictions. (this clause is more ambiguous on the license in Japanese) >> * lost "arrangements with the author" clause 2.d) and 3.d) > > Same here: I could modify Ruby and place my modifications or my > redistribution under BSD without doing any of 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, 2.d. No. By this clause, Matz can change the license only by his thought. >> * lost 4. > > This is already permitted by the BSD license anyway. 4. doesn't need keep copyright notices. >> If someone uses those clause, they can't update the code from Ruby. >> So such change needs more care. > > So, to summarize, there are two cases: > - clauses where the Ruby license adds additional restrictions, compared > to BSD (example: 2.* 3.*): > Then it is possible to circumvent those restrictions by using BSD > only. As I wrote above, it cannot. > - clauses where the BSD license adds additional restrictions, compared > to Ruby's: > the only clause in that case is the fact that you must retain the > copyright notices. That doesn't sound serious enough to warrant dual > licensing. And if that's really a problem, you could actually remove > that clause from the BSD license. I think removed one is not a major BSDL. I don't think that it is better than Ruby's; Ruby's is 100% compatible with Ruby's. -- NARUSE, Yui