From: John Gabriele Date: 2006-06-17T02:28:35+09:00 Subject: Re: License question On 6/15/06, 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? Since Perl can be distributed under either the GPL or the Artistic license, this Perl module you translated from can likewise be distributed under either one. IMO, your code is a derivative work, and thus would also fall under those same conditions: that is, I believe you may choose to distribute your ruby lib under either GPL or Artistic. The Ruby license is similar to Perl's: you may distribute Ruby under the GPL or else under some custom licensing terms that you can read about at http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt (Matz is a big fan of Larry's, and you'll notice that these custom terms look like they were modeled after the Artistic license). (Incidentally, from what I can tell (from reading an interview with Matz on _Why's blog), Matz isn't totally happy with the dual licensing details, and if possible, licensing may change in the future (that is, to get rid of the custom licensing terms in favor of a more commonly used standard license). I don't know any details beyond that though.) It's very common to see Ruby code licensed similar to Perl code -- i.e. it'll say, "You may distribute this code under the same terms as Ruby itself". I'm guessing that, since your code will be used by Ruby or other Ruby modules, and may itself use other Ruby modules, then it must have a compatible license. Regarding the Artistic license (the one currently used with Perl5), the FSF licensing page mentions it: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#ArtisticLicense . You can read its text at http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html . The fsf asserts that it's vague and incompatible with the GPL. So, in my opinion, I'd just license the module under the GPL. ---John