From: Christian Kaiser <bchk@...>
Date: 2004-07-15T23:17:19+09:00
Subject: Problem using Ruby as script language, which limits its distribution speed

I am (or was) a big fan of ruby (except some unexpected function names, but
who cares <g>).

Now I need to write a text filter in a commercial application. In the last
one or two years I've become accustomized using Ruby and its advantages, but
now I see that using Ruby in a commercial application is not failsafe legal,
thus I can/may not use it.

This means I have to learn another script language, although I don't like
to.

This also means that I will have to give up Ruby more and more, as I cannot
handle too many languages (Delphi, C/Cpp, Ruby and a new one - it's already
complicated enough). And I guess that happens to other developers as well,
thus effectively keeping the number of Ruby developers less than it could
be. I doubt I'm alone with that problem.

Is there an official statement on Ruby and commercial usage? I know LICENSE
and it is neither bulletproof (the "exceptions" in the file list, see LEGAL,
give our legal department heartaches) nor does it state clearly whether it's
allowed to use the library (*.DLL in my Windows' case) alone - which in my
case would be sufficient - I don't need to compile any C source code, I just
want to be able to evaluate a .rb script.

If commercial developers could use it, they would contribute [more], as for
when they need to add functionality, this could/should be published for all
users. Being able to use the language as an extension (like a DLL) will
improve the spreading and usage of Ruby.

So again: Is there an official statement on Ruby and commercial usage which
a legal department can accept?

Christian