From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2002-09-09T03:25:16+09:00
Subject: Re: JRuby (was Re: OS-independent build of ruby)

"Jan Arne Petersen" <jpetersen@uni-bonn.de> writes:

> 3) We are working hard to release JRuby also under the LGPL. I spend
>    a lot of time to create JRuby and I never get any money for this
>    work neither direct nor indirect. It is very depressing to be
>    confronted with your reproachs.

I agree that the original e-mail might have been somewhat too
aggressive. Assuming that no original licenses are broken, you clearly
have the right to use whatever license you want for JRuby. I respect
your flexibility at adding the LGPL in to the mix.

Licensing is a very interesting area. Until you've invested 100's of
hours producing something you intend to release, it's all very
academic. But when you need to release something that you've worked
hard on, suddenly the license becomes important, and decisions that
once seemed simple become difficult.

The (L)GPL issue is a very difficult one. Some developers have a
philosophical drive that says software must be GPLed. Other developers
recognize that this (by intent) will limit the number of people who
use their software, and therefore seek to use a more open license
(perhaps BSD/MIT based). One camp looks for reinforce the authority of
the FSF, while the other camp writes software that they want used by
the maximum number of people.

It's purely a question of the developers' motivations. As the people
who invested the original (and considerable) effort, they have every
right to license the code any way they want (assuming no break of
existing copyrights).

Personally, I dislike releasing under the (L)GPL. I write software for
other people to use. I would encourage the JRuby folks to spend time
considering the downsides of a more liberal license (and I'd be happy
to discuss this off-list with them if they wanted), but I'd defend
their right to use any licensing terms they can legally use.


Regards


Dave