From: Ben Tilly Date: 2000-12-14T11:45:44+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:7189] Re: Ruby in the US amk@mira.erols.com (A.M. Kuchling) wrote: > >On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:56:07 +0900, > Peter Wood wrote: > >latter. Why? In Python's case, because its just better (faster, > >cleaner, sensible licence, no Guido). > >Ummm... can features be added to Ruby even if Matz thinks they're bad >ideas? I think Yukihiro Matsumoto is clearly Ruby's equivalent to >Guido, and that's a good thing in both cases. The terms that Ruby comes under permit a GPL fork. So yes, features can be added by anyone with or without Matz liking that. Of course it might not get far, but you can do it. By contrast Guido has tried to maintain more control over Python's licensing. However there is a licensing problem for Ruby. Ruby contains parts (for instance regex.c) which are under the LGPL. I believe that people seeking to embed a Ruby interpreter into other pieces of software must therefore do one of the following: 1) Use Ruby (or just the parts you want to access) as part of a library you link to rather than directly embedding it. 2) Accept a GPL or LGPL license for their own work. 3) Strip out the parts of Ruby which fall under strict free software licenses and replace them. These restrictions do not appear to be Matz' intent. (Indeed his work appears under a license that looks suspiciously like Perl's Artistic License.) However the code in question is licensed by the FSF. And I guarantee that it will be *their* intent to make it hard to embed Ruby in proprietary products. (Note: The Free Software Foundation has very different goals from the Open Source Movement. They have a very distinct agenda.) If this restriction appears likely to cause problems, then it may be worthwhile for someone to take some time out to come up with less restrictive replacements for the key sections. Cheers, Ben _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com