From: Christian Kaiser <chk@...>
Date: 2004-07-16T05:52:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Problem using Ruby as script language, which limits its distribution speed

Phil,

> >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.
>
> What do you mean by 'failsafe legal'?

That means that it passes our legal department, so that they can say we are
allowed to use Ruby for our purpose - embedding a ruby DLL into a small
application (actually I could use rubyw.exe, but to protect our script I
need to create something like rubyw.exe but which decrypts our script before
passing it to the ruby engine).

It's just a "script in, source file in, processed file out"-type of
application. But either I use the DLL or I need to compile the lib - both
not clearly stated what I need to do.

The lawyers fear that we need to pass all the files on to the user (which
would by itself not be an absolute no-no), but then we would need to look at
all files, make sure all of them can be copied legally, and so on; add all
the copyright information to our own terms of use. Lawyers are payed for
looking danger in every corner, but I need to accept their statement.

Right now they said that it's not clear that we can use Ruby at all.

> >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.
>
> Depends on what you're using Ruby for in your application.  The current
> regex engine is GPL, however Onigumura (sp?) the new regex engine (I
> believe it's included in the 1.9.0 source now) is LGPL and so has less
> restrictions.  So you may just have to replace the current regex engine
> with Onigumura (aka the new regex engine ;-)

The old RegEx is already under LGPL, so then there would be no difference. I
assume Oniguruma is free. LGPL _should_ be no problem for us (it allows
linking to an executable or library that is under LGPL without restriction,
which we would do), but nobody can tell for sure.

But you see what I mean, if you write "you may have to"... It is not stated
clearly what can be done. And in these days where a lawyer is behind the
next corner, waiting for something to do, this is just too dangerous.
Software-patent-issues that will grow more and more add to the threat, but
that's another story and unrelated to Ruby (I hope).

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

> Yes (well it depends a lot on how you want to use Ruby in your
> application).

Again a "depends" :)))

> In fact at my previous job we used Ruby to script some installation
> issues on a CD.  So we included Ruby on the CD as well as our scripts for
> doing the install checks.  The user ends up running a Ruby script after
> the CD is inserted in their system (well, it's a lot more convoluted
> than that, but I don't want to go into all the details) We passed all of
> this by legal and it was approved.

So this is because you use the EXE, not the DLL, I assume.

> In your case it would seem that you want to use Ruby as a DLL - that's
> certainly different than the way we were using Ruby.  However, I think if
> you were to replace the current regex engine with the new LGPL'ed regex
> engine you probably would have no legal difficulties with using Ruby as a
> DLL or shared library.

Yes, but you also seem to be unsure about these issues... "you _probably_
would have no legal difficulties". That's what I want to show: it's really
hard as it is now, to be sure of the legal issues of commercial use. Which
as a single one-man-show developer would stop me from using it as I have no
lawyers. Some of them will ignore the problems, and some will use a
different script language - the latter bad for Ruby and its acceptance.

I don't blame Matz - he mabe did not have an alternative to the old regex
(and other files mentioned in LEGAL), or he did not care, but this is an
issue that should be taken care of.

Thank you,

Christian