From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2002-02-21T04:29:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Epic4/Ruby

Hi,

In message "Re: Epic4/Ruby"
    on 02/02/21, Thomas Hurst <tom.hurst@clara.net> writes:

|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"?

Yes.  Should I use the term "compiled binary"?

|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.

I understand what you mean.  But it's kinda hard to change the license
terms used for years.  Rite will be covered by far simpler license.

# Permission is granted for use, copying, modification, distribution,
# and distribution of modified versions of this work as long as the
# above copyright notice is included.

|> 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.. :)

That is the only component that's covered by GNU license.  See LEGAL file.

							matz.