From: Matthew Smillie Date: 2006-06-16T19:06:01+09:00 Subject: Re: License question On Jun 16, 2006, at 8:50, A. S. Bradbury wrote: > 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. I'd say the same, legally speaking. Including the bit about not being a lawyer. I'd also consider this: even if the code was substantially different, the functionality is the same, and based on the same idea. To me, that would represent an ethical argument to stick with the terms of the license from the original code, given that it's an open license at least similar to the one you prefer. I'd say this argument is particularly strong if the library you're porting was a substantial and unique contribution of that individual, but it's a really weak argument if it's a simple idea that just didn't happen to exist yet in Perl. Whether this argument deserves more weight than... - your personal preference for the Artistic License - practical concerns (e.g., LGPL vs. GPL vs. MIT) - what your horoscope says is, like Alex said, entirely up to you. matthew smillie.