From: Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@...>
Date: 2005-10-03T08:11:46+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby licence...


Jeremy Tregunna wrote:

> I'm well informed with the FSF's idiology; I can agree in points, but
> not in its entirety; and I will not argue idiology with you or anyone
> else on this list.

Probably a great idea.  The FSF issue will always be a hot spot for
most people.

Nevertheless, I think the OP's question has certainly been answered.

If you bundle Ruby, you technically don't even need to be GPL
compatible, let alone under the GPL yourself.  However, the best
protection would be to be GPL compatible because the Ruby License is
incredibly weak standing alone.

Of course, there are plenty of licenses that are GPL compatible, and
they vary in ideology and flavor.  So it's best to pick the one you
like best.

If you bundle Ruby under the GPL and you use the GPL yourself, you've
effectively copylefted your work.  If that's what you're going for,
awesome!

If not, you might want to choose a more permissive license.  Many
non-copylefted free software licenses exist.

The most freedom is a disjunctive license which lets a user choose but
can lead to confusion, alas the source of this whole thread :)