From: Jeremy Henty <jeremy@...>
Date: 2004-07-20T03:52:11+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Specification

(Disclaimer: the isn't really (directly) about Ruby, so you may think
it off-topic.  But it is (indirectly) about the consequences of
looking at the Ruby source, so I hope it is on-topic.)

In article <019301c46db9$6a9f7930$6442a8c0@musicbox>, Bill Kelly wrote:

> I thought open source wasn't doing a good job of being open source
> if you had to be wary of reading it for legal reasons?

"Open source" only means "you have the right to do certain things with
this software".  It does *not* mean "you can do whatever you like with
it and not worry about the consequences".  *That* is only true of
software released into the public domain.

> An example in my field of interest is id Software's generous release
> of their older game engines, such as DOOM, Quake, and Quake 2 under
> the GPL.  I was a game developer when the Quake source was released,
> and it never would have occurred to me to be afraid to look at it.

Pardon my bluntness, but that was foolish of you.  The GPL requires
you to release all derived works under the GPL too.  If you looked at
id Software's source and used it in a closed source product of your
own then id Software would have grounds for suing you for damages.

I am not accusing you of trying to rob id Software (nor am I accusing
id Software of being litigious <disrespectful_term>s).  I just want to
point out that good intentions may not be enough to keep you out of
court.  Companies have sued ex-employees simply for working in the
same industry, claiming "inevitable disclosure" ie. "this person
learned their skills with us, so if they use those skills elsewhere
they are violating our IP rights".  I don't condone their behaviour (I
actually find it loathsome), but the practical upshot is that if you
don't like the idea of being sued by people with much more lawyers and
money than you then you should think very hard about the licenses of
any software you look at.

> Anyway, again, this is not intended as a criticism - I'm just trying
> to understand what could possibly be wrong with looking at Ruby's
> source code.

Nothing, as long as you conform to its license.  But if the OP wants
to release code under the BSD license and is not sure whether the Ruby
license is BSD-compatible, then the OP's decision not to look at the
Ruby source is IMHO extremely sensible.

Regards, 

Jeremy Henty