From: Chad Perrin Date: 2007-10-15T14:20:41+09:00 Subject: Re: MIT vs. Ruby/GPL License On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:46:50AM +0900, Charles D Hixson wrote: > Chad Perrin wrote: > > > >Yes, but . . . it's entirely possible that someone might want to ship a > >bundled application. In such a circumstance, you're probably trying to > >make things convenient for an end-user that shouldn't have to know > >anything about, say, ruby gems. An installer that sticks everything in > >place really changes the face of things for you in such a circumstance. > > > As I said, "Kind of fuzzy" isn't the half of it. > So in the case you're considering, what does the installer do? If it > downloads and installs the gem, then you aren't distributing the gem. > OTOH, if you include the gem (perhaps to ensure that it's the version > that you expect), then you are. It could go either way in different > circumstances. Some gems require that the version of the gem match > libraries installed on the system, in which case you had really better > not be distributing the gem, no matter *what* the license. Some don't. If I was shipping an app for non-technical end users so low down the DIY scale that I'd automate installation of Ruby gems, I certainly wouldn't assume a broadband Internet connection during the installation process. I'd also, as you suggested, want to make sure the version wouldn't change and break the app. > > Actually, gems should probably be under the LGPL rather than the GPL for > just these reasons...but they may not be. > OTOH, if you're distributing the code, why are you using gems, anyway? > Just distribute the source, and let your installer handle it. If you > distribute the source, you're ALWAYS satisfying the GPL (unless you > obfuscate it or something). There are other potential issues than simply whether or not you satisfy the source distribution requirements of the GPL. > > But that said, there ARE corner cases. It's fractally fuzzy. Exactly. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Paul Graham: "Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to build programs out of the wrong concepts."