From: Christian Kaiser <bchk@...>
Date: 2004-07-16T01:07:16+09:00
Subject: Re: Problem using Ruby as script language, which limits its distribution speed

Sorry, what do you mean "in different expression unfortunately"?

And AFAIK, the LGPL allows using of libraries with LGPLed code in them, so
when I link to the Ruby DLL only, there should not be any problem. Microsoft
states " The LGPL allows software programs to link to, or 'call,' programs
governed by the LGPL without running the risk of subjecting the calling
program to the GPL". Anyway, I'll look into Oniguruma, but I'd better not
recompile Ruby unless I need to.

Thanks for your answer, you're giving me hope!!! :) I "just" have to
convince the lawyers...

Christian

"Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1089905598.192198.16016.nullmailer@picachu.netlab.jp...
> Hi,
>
> In message "Problem using Ruby as script language, which limits its
distribution speed"
>     on 04/07/15, "Christian Kaiser" <bchk@gmx.de> writes:
>
> |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.
>
> No license in LEGAL file should stop you from using Ruby in the
> commercial applications.  No obligation but honoring copyrights, in
> different expression unfortunately.  The only exception is LGPL
> applied to regex.[ch], which may cause problem when it requests
> re-linking of your application.  But it can be easily avoided by
> replacing it by Oniguruma (new regex engine).  A company in Japan
> embedded Ruby 1.8.1 interpreter (with Oniguruma) in its commercial
> role playing game generator, just released this month of July.
>
> matz.
>
>