From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2005-08-14T00:44:36+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby report generation tool On 8/13/05, Greg Brown wrote: > Regarding Ruport, I have received some requests to consider a license > other than the GPL. I am thinking of using the license of ruby > itself, which would be a disjunctive license of the GPL and the ruby > license. Would this be permissive enough for most people's needs? I > am willing to consider the Artistic license as well, though I'd prefer > to use a license which offers the GPL as an option. Feel free to > voice your opinion on or off list. When working on PDF::Writer, I deliberately chose the MIT-style licence because I wanted it to be used as widely as possible. It can be used in GNU GPLed projects without problems (modulo issues with Adobe's patents, but that's a generic issue, not a GNU GPL issue) or under commercial projects without problems. If one makes the report generator GPLed, then you have severely restricted it. If one makes the report generator MPLed (for example), then the commercial and other OSS opportunities are greater, but the GPL is incompatible with the MPL (this is mostly the GPL's fault). Ultimately, the licence is up to you, but life is easier if you choose a single minimally restrictive licence rather than dual-licence. (Don't get me *started* on the licensing for Text::Hyphen because of jackasses who licenced their hyphenation files under the GNU GPL.) -austin -- Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca