From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2002-02-23T14:28:34+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby license (was Epic4/Ruby)

Hi,

In message "Re: Ruby license (was Epic4/Ruby)"
    on 02/02/22, Thomas Hurst <tom.hurst@clara.net> writes:

|>        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.

?

If you DO NOT want to release your modified version, condition 2b
should be applied.

       b) use the modified software only within your corporation or
          organization.

If you do want to release your modified version without revealing your
modification, you have to rename it, and provide standard Ruby along
with yours, even if one of which is useless to you.  I guess it can
be relaxed to "with instructions to get the original software
distribution".

|>        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 :)

It is not clear whether you have to provide standard binary or just
instructions to get the original.  This uncertainness is also found in
Artistic License (Perl's license).  For Ruby, you just need to provide
instructions.

Changing term 2c may clarify condition.

|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?

This license is *not* GPL compatible by itself.  RMS said so.
It should be applied along with GPL like Ruby does.

							matz.