Re: Epic4/Ruby

* Yukihiro Matsumoto ([e-mail]) wrote:

> In message "Re: Epic4/Ruby" on 02/02/20, Jonas Bow
> <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> > I *really* wish ruby had a BSD-like license.
>
> What's wrong with Ruby's license?  See [ruby-talk:34211]

Some components are not covered by it, which makes working out whether
you can use it at all much more difficult

Modifying Ruby also looks slightly grey; the license mentions you can
either make your modifications public, or provide original executables;
what about libraries?  An embedded Ruby interpreter is likely to be in
the form of a .dll, is that covered under the term "executable"?

The advantage of a BSD style license is it's so simple; there's
virtually no way you can use BSD licensed code in a way that's going to
get you sued, but when I look at Ruby I see a custom license I've never
seen before AND a bunch of files covered by different licenses.

Given that the advantages of using Ruby are perilous at best in many
cases, the license cripples it conciderably and throws it out as an
option most of the time:

 * Ruby?  Never heard of it.  Looks ok, but I'm not sure about the
   license.  I've been thinking about (writing my own|using <something
   else>) anyway.  <promptly forgets all about Ruby>

Vs.

 * Ruby?  Never heard of it.  Looks ok, oh, and it's BSD licensed, cool.
   <investigates further>

Oh, and the license mixes tabs and spaces.  Shame on you :)

>                                                       matz. p.s.  Yes,
> regex.c is still LGPL, but I'm writing new regex engine from scratch
> for Rite.

Is that the only component that's not covered by the Ruby license now?
That's not what the license says.. :)

-- 
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst  -  [e-mail]  -  http://www.aagh.net/
-
There are more things in heaven and earth,
Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
		-- Hamlet