Re: Ruby license (was Epic4/Ruby)

* Dave Thomas ([e-mail]) wrote:

I am not a lawyer, but here's my take on the license:

>   2. You may modify your copy of the software in any way, provided
>   that you do at least ONE of the following:
>
>        a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise
>        make them Freely Available, such as by posting said
>        modifications to Usenet or an equivalent medium, or by allowing
>        the author to include your modifications in the software.
>
>        b) use the modified software only within your corporation or
>        organization.

Up to here it's identical to the GPL, except the source has to either be
public domain (i.e. utterly free), given to Matz, or only used
privately.

>        c) rename any non-standard executables so the names do not
>        conflict with standard executables, which must also be
>        provided.

First problem; if you don't want to release your modified version of
ruby.dll (maybe because your modifications only make sense next to your
application, and/or you don't want to make any of your own API's you use
in there known by everyone), you have to rename it and provide two
copies of the dll, one of which is useless to you.

>   3. You may distribute the software in object code or executable
>   form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
>
>        a) distribute the executables and library files of the
>        software, together with instructions (in the manual page or
>        equivalent) on where to get the original distribution.

This is not a problem; if you want to use a third party language,
certainly you want your users to know where to go to learn it :)

>        c) give non-standard executables non-standard names,
>        with instructions on where to get the original software
>        distribution.

Isn't this contradicting 2c?  I can't think of a more scary license than
one which appears to contradict itself :)

>   4. You may modify and include the part of the software into any
>   other software (possibly commercial).  But some files in the
>   distribution are not written by the author, so that they are not
>   under these terms.
>
>      For the list of those files and their copying conditions, see the
>      file LEGAL.

This is definately going to worry anyone concidering using it; it's hard
enough getting to grips with one license without worrying about how it
interacts with 20 other licenses in the system, especially with the LGPL
being in there; doesn't that automatically make Ruby LGPL + it's own
license?  Even more worrying, is the Ruby License even compatible with
the LGPL?

-- 
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst  -  [e-mail]  -  http://www.aagh.net/
-
Television -- a medium.  So called because it is neither rare nor well done.
		-- Ernie Kovacs