From: Christian Kaiser <bchk@...>
Date: 2004-07-16T15:42:16+09:00
Subject: Re: Problem using Ruby as script language, which limits its distribution speed

> > Right now they said that it's not clear that we can use Ruby at all.
>
> "I am not a lawyer".. etc...  But...
>
> I'm trying to understand what it is that "nobody can tell
> for sure."  Do you mean that nobody can tell for sure what
> the LGPL allows?

Concerning Ruby, there's a problem.

a) Ruby is GPL, or

b) it's under Ruby license, but then

c) some files have other copyrights (Regex is only one of them, but if I
read the LEGAL file correctly, it's not only the regex engine we need to
care about).

So it's (c) which gives them problems.

I know that a lot of people use it, but given only COPYING and LEGAL, it's
not as clear to know what can be done and where potential problem lies.

> I'm confused.  Are you suggesting that you need a staff of
> lawyers to feel comfortable using LGPL code?

If it were only LGPL, I would not (anyway, I don't need that staff and I
would gladly hit them anywhere where it hurts - but the firm I work for).

> > 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.
>
> Matz definitely cared... It's one of his stated reasons for
> wanting a new regexp engine, so it could be under Ruby's
> license, which is even less restrictive than LGPL.

And about the other files?

And what about derivative work? When we use Ruby in a commercial tool, and
mention the copyright of the ruby parts, and others use our tool - do they
have to mention the ruby copyrights also? These convoluted thoughts are the
things lawyers think about all the time.

Thanks for your help!

Christian