From: "A. S. Bradbury" <asbradbury@...>
Date: 2006-06-16T16:50:57+09:00
Subject: Re: License question

On Friday 16 June 2006 02:27, darren kirby wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have translated a Perl module that grabs info from wma files to Ruby.
> This
>
> module's license says:
> >This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > it under the same terms as Perl itself.
>
> I wonder how I should or have to license my Ruby library accordingly, as
> when I say 'translated' I mean it is _very_ similar to the original right
> down to variable names etc. I usually license my scripts using the Artistic
> license, but I wonder how Ruby library code is usually licenced?

I'm no copyright lawyer, but it sounds to me like it would be considered a 
derivative work. If you wish to release your version under a different 
license, you could always email the author and ask for their views on the 
issue.

Is the Perl license not a dual Artistic license and GPL scheme? I guess (hope) 
you're currently using the GPL-compatible Clarified Artistic License, but the 
Perl license is also GPL compatible through it's dual-licensing.

Ruby library code is often licensed under the same terms as Ruby:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt
Much like the perl license, this allows distribution under two different 
licensing schemes - the GPL or what seems to me to be a New BSDish license.

Of course there is variety in license selection, others may opt for an MIT/BSD 
license, or go straight for the GPL. Using the GPL in library code may mean 
some people can't or don't wish to use it in their codebase, but of course 
it's your choice to make.

> Thanks for consideration,
> -d
Hope I've been some help.

Alex