From: Terry Poulin <bigboss64@...>
Date: 2007-10-15T02:00:53+09:00
Subject: Re: MIT vs. Ruby/GPL License

I don't think the difference between MIT and GPL License has much purpose in
connection with Ruby ^_^


As far as licenses go:

I generally find the ISC, MIT/X and BSD Style licenses (in that order) much
preferable to the GPL. Namely because it does not have much chance to get in
my way. I also don't trust the Free Software Foundation and their GPL not to
screw me over at a later day (e.g. GPL 2 or above; e.t.c.)

Any one with questions about the GPL should check the FAQ

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

and the actual text (yes it is boring)

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Older versions are probably available online.

Then compare it with the very short in comparason license texts of the other
licenses. That will help any one a lot more the chatter on Ruby-Talk (no
offense meant to other subscribers).


Most stuff I write with any intention of leaving ~/code/*/src/ has a topper in
it, some thing like this. Which is basically a template for the ISC License
for any language that uses the # symbol for comments. I keep a
~/code/licenses/<license/ directory with templates like this for a number of
licenses. And a version for different comment types, mostly /* */, //, and #
(C, C++, and Bourne style).


################################################################################
# Copyright (c) 2007, My Name < My E-mail address>                             #
#                                                                              #
################################################################################
#                                                                              #
# Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any     #
# purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above       #
# copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.            #
#                                                                              #
# THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES     #
# WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF             #
# MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR      #
# ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES       #
# WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN        #
# ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF      #
# OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.               #
#                                                                              #
################################################################################

I also like the joke version of the BSD License on the *uncyclopedia* although
I don't actually use it in programs. I think the joking makes a good point of
what   a license should allow. I.e. Do what ever the hell you want with it,
just remember who wrote it, and the author is not responsible for damages.

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/BSD#License

TerryP.


--
    
Email and shopping with the feelgood factor!
55% of income to good causes. http://www.ippimail.com