From: Gregory Brown Date: 2006-04-06T21:23:27+09:00 Subject: Re: GPL v3 and Ruby License. On 4/6/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > Hi, > > In message "Re: GPL v3 and Ruby License." > on Thu, 6 Apr 2006 02:03:34 +0900, "Gregory Brown" writes: > > |Meaning... when GPLv3 comes out, do we. > | > |a) Resist it by removing any "any later version" clauses from our > |license agreements which use the license of ruby > | > |b) Embrace it and re-release code using GPLv3 and Matz's terms, but > |make sure the FSF hears the voice of our community beforehand. > | > |c) Can it entirely and favor an established license such as the BSD license. > | > |d) Draft up our own license, possibly with cartoon foxes. > > For your information, at the beginning of Ruby's license, we see: > > Ruby is copyrighted free software by Yukihiro Matsumoto . > You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL > (see the file GPL), or the conditions below: > > and the file GPL contains GPLv2, so you have no option to choose GPLv3 > automatically even when it comes out. Even though I have no objection > to GPLv3 unlike Linus right now, still we don't have any problem with > our current licensing. So I'd wait for few more years after the final > release to settle things down, then if we find no problem, I would > replace the GPL file to GPLv3. Oh... cool. Now we just have libraries and things like that to be concerned with, but that's an individual developers decision. Thanks matz. I wonder if it might be smart to explicitly note GPLv2?