From: Gregory Brown Date: 2007-07-28T03:42:46+09:00 Subject: Re: [ANN] Rubypub.com - A Ruby Documentation Wiki On 7/27/07, Brian Tol wrote: > On 7/27/07, Gregory Brown wrote: > > On 7/27/07, Brian Tol wrote: > > > > > To be honest, that was my biggest hesitation in developing the site. > > > Pissing people off is the _last_ thing I want to do. On the other > > > hand, since (a) lots of gems need better (or _any_) documentation, and > > > (b) gems are licensed in such a way that allow for reuse like this, I > > > thought I'd give it a go. > > > > (b) isn't true. What makes you assume that? > > Good to know. I looked through a couple hundred gems looking at > licenses before I started this thing, so that's where I got that idea, > and looked at this page: > > http://rubyforge.org/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=13 > > The "Other/Proprietary License" licensed projects are either (a) dual > license under GPL, or (b) haven't released anything. > > The remaining gems are released under public domain, CC, OSI-approved, > or Ruby licenses. From what I've read, and in talking with other > people, the CC, OSI and Ruby licenses would work with rubypub. There are OSI approved licenses which would not be compatible with CC S/A, or at least be disputed. For example, if I use an academic license which restricts certain things about modification, my code would be open source but not free software, and that means that third parties may not have the right to redistribute derived works when it comes to documentation. These issues are not likely to be numerous, but definitely likely to be a big mess which you should avoid (and easily can).