From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2002-05-30T23:02:05+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby's license

Hi,

In message "Re: Ruby's license"
    on 02/05/30, Chris Gehlker <gehlker@fastq.com> writes:

|Maybe I'm being overly picky but what I wanted was some specific
|instructions from you on how to edit it. For example, it's wasn't clear to
|me that I could remove the first sentence of #4 without changing your intent
|even if I wrote the whole thing. It isn't clear whether one can remove the
|reference to the GPL and say that the work is single licensed under the Ruby
|license.

Ask me if you have question.

A1) you can remove the term no.4 if you wrote the whole thing.
A2) I recommend to use the terms as dual license with GPL (or LGPL) to
    make them compatible with GPL.  The terms themselves are *not* GPL
    compatible (like Perl's Artistic license).

							matz.