From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2001-08-15T12:29:45+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:19753] Re: General (GUI/license) questions

Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:19748] Re: General (GUI/license) questions"
    on 01/08/15, Ryan Tarpine <rtarpine@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> writes:

|Of all the licences I've reviewed, though, I do particularly 
|feel the Ruby licence gives the most freedom while still placing some 
|control.  Should it be altered for distribution of source-only programs?  
|Section 3 doesn't seem to apply.  Also, should I take out sections 4 and 5? 
| Or would that not allow me to still call the licence the Rubby licence?  

Notice that

  (a) Like Artistice license, Ruby's license is NOT a free software
      license from FSF view point, unless it applied dual licensed
      with GPL (or LGPL).  Stallman once told me so.

  (b) Besides that, it's pretty imperfect.  I'm thinking of upgrading
      it.  But I lack the knowledge about contracting.  So maybe in
      the future.

							matz.