From: Christian Neukirchen Date: 2005-10-03T21:40:29+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby licence... Yukihiro Matsumoto writes: > Hi, > > In message "Re: Ruby licence..." > on Mon, 3 Oct 2005 07:51:46 +0900, "Greg Brown" writes: > > |>From Richard Stallman: > | > |" The 'Ruby license' does not give permission to sell copies. > | So it is not a free software license. > | > | Only the fact that Ruby is also available under the GPL > | makes Ruby free software " > > Non-GPL part of the 'Ruby license' does not contain any terms to > prohibit selling copies. Yet it still does contain some terms that > are not compatible with GPL, so that applying it without GPL makes > Ruby non-free software. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html > The license of Ruby > This is a Free Software license, compatible with the GPL via an > explicit dual-licensing clause. > Note that the Ruby license is always dual with GPL. You can choose > terms you use, but still you have to allow others to choose their own > terms including GPL, so that applying the part of it is not an option > for Ruby. I have to say you that I really enjoy the Ruby license. It was a very good choice. > matz. -- Christian Neukirchen http://chneukirchen.org