[ruby-talk:7209] Re: Ruby in the US

Dave Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>"Ben Tilly" <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
>Isn't this what we'd do anyway? You'd write to the interface and link
>against libruby.a. I don't think you'd embed the source to embed Ruby.

I didn't write that very well.  You don't have the option
to compile with static linking.  Proprietary products have
to use dynamic linking and make it clear how to replace the
LGPLed libraries.

>Or am I missing something? It's been a while since I read the LGPL.

The relevant passage appears to be section 6.  I admit to
not having read the LGPL nearly as closely as I have read
the GPL.  It has changed names recently, but I don't think
any provisions have changed, text is at

http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/lesser.html

Let me scan it.  Hmm...

OK, if you anywhere display copyright notices during
executation, you have to also include the LGPL.  Given that
Ruby's version has been modified, you either have to be
linking against a locally installed version of Ruby or you
have to ship or offer to ship source-code to Ruby's
changed versions.  (It would probably be sufficient to state
that you have embedded version such and so of Ruby which can
be obtained at _____.)

Oh, and you have to ship the LGPL license along with your
product so people can refer to the text.

Are these particularly odious requirements?  Not really.
But there are a lot of paperwork, and it is very easy to
accidentally miss something unintentionally.

In fact I note that the version of Ruby I downloaded last
week did not come with a copy of the LGPL.  It is therefore
in license violation.  Clearly Matz didn't *intend* to mess
up, but he did.  IANAL but I believe that "playing this by
the books" Matz technically needs to write to the relevant
copyright holders (the FSF and Yoshida Masato), explain
what happened, and ask for forgiveness.  In reality all he
needs to do is go, "Oops", put the license in, and be
careful to ship with the license in the future.

If he does not formally get permission, the copyright holders
could theoretically choose to tell him at any time that he
cannot ship and never will be able to.  They are not going to
do something that stupid.  This only affects the person or
persons who distributed copies in violation.  For instance I
can ship my copy of regex.c despite the fact that Matz was in
violation in how he shipped it to me.

Again, the LGPL isn't odious, it just involves some paperwork
that is really easy to slip up on...

Cheers,
Ben
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com