From: "trans.  (T. Onoma)" <transami@...>
Date: 2004-10-29T14:57:43+09:00
Subject: Licensing (was: Float and Bignum)

On Thursday 28 October 2004 01:43 pm, Austin Ziegler wrote:
| On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:30:50 +0900, trans.  (T. Onoma)
|
| <transami@runbox.com> wrote:
| > Oh. Can't work with LGPL? Is that because of your job/employer?
| >
| > BTW: I a see lots of other people's programs under Ruby license. Does
| > that actually make sense?
|
| Because it places restrictions on embedding Ruby. Languages are too
| important to put under restrictive licences like GPL and LGPL.

Is that right, matz?  LGPL is too restrictive in this way?  Would a more 
BSD-like license be needed?

I wonder if the GMP team could/would make a special license arrangement for 
Ruby. Who knows. May be worth a try. A see a couple of potential pluses 
arising from such:

  a) Ruby gets a much better Bignum class (if not more). 
  b) Ruby gets notoriety for adopting a strong open-source
     library. Fantastic publicity!
  c) GMP gets some notoriety for being picked up by one of the major
     scripting languages. It's good for them too.
  d) The whole licensing arrangement may feed further publicity:
     special-case open licenses may be an interesting direction
     for OSS --if it could be satisfactorily done.

Thoughts?
T.