From: Ben Tilly <ben_tilly@...>
Date: 2001-03-09T06:31:02+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:12301] Re: Licensing, Intellectual Property, and Ruby code (longish)

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>     This is particularly important when you are adding
>     busy people (like RMS) to the cc list who lack
>     context.
>
>I have no idea what question is under discussion.
>
As is usual, several questions.  The three main points
that I was making were these:

1. Ruby is a new(ish) language.  Someone wanted to put
   up a site to serve as a Ruby Cookbook, similar to
   the Perl Cookbook in that it contained idiomatic
   examples of how to solve specific problems.  He
   asked whether it would be good to have a policy that
   the code snippets be GPLed.  I thought it was good
   to have a clear policy, but I thought something
   closer to a BSD license was a better fit.  (We want
   junior programmers who do not make licensing
   decisions to feel free to borrow code.)

2. Ruby also has an application archive that some day
   may grow into another CPAN.  I said that it was very
   important to have a uniform licensing policy up
   front.  My specific recommendation is that all of the
   modules and applications should be available under the
   same terms as Ruby.  (Dual GPL/Artistic variant. It is
   a bit simpler than Perl's.  I don't know if from your
   point of view it has the same problems that Perl's
   license does.)

3. I also expressed my usual opinion that people should
   read the GPL and understand what its goals are.  If you
   agree with those goals, then you should use it in any
   application where it fits.  (In general your choice of
   license should reflect your goals.  If it doesn't, then
   you chose the wrong license.)

Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com