From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@...>
Date: 2003-07-09T09:51:50+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 09:35:47AM +0900, Ray Cote wrote:

> Hi Daniel:
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> I believe these two items from the GPL FAQ cover the question:
> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyUseGPL>
> 
> ---
> If a library   is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that 
> mean that any   program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
> Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library
> ---
> You have a   GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to 
> build a   proprietary program.  Does the fact that I link with your 
> program mean   I have to GPL my program?
> Yes.
> ---

Well, it's not that simple.  Ruby modules are not linked into your program the way 
a binary library would be.  On the other hand, they are not exactly external 
programs either.  So it's not quite clear there.

Judging from the first question, I am now leaning towards saying that yes, it is a 
derivative work, on the basis that (I think) a "require" actually does "stick in" 
the module code into your program, hence making it a derivative.  Perhaps someone 
could correct or confirm this.

So, yes, it seems that you are right on that.


> There are a variety of ways of 'hiding' code. One of the projects 
> we're currently designing consists of a sealed box delivered to the 
> user, a sort of 'payment appliance' if you will. The end user not 
> only has no access to the code on the machine, they have no need for 
> access. However, under the GPL, I would be legally bound to 
> distribute source code for the program on that machine.

Well... you'd be legally bound to provide it upon request.  I apologize if this is 
a dumb question, but if the user has no use for the source anyways, what's the 
problem with the GPL?

The user doesn't need the source.  You don't have to provide the source unless 
they want it.  What's the problem?


> If I have a choice of working in an environment where the licenses 
> promote commercial use or working in an environment where I need to 
> check and perhaps get permission for special licenses, I'm going to 
> take the path of least resistance.

Well... don't mixup "commercial" and "propietary".  I still don't understand why 
the GPL would inhibit you from selling your commercial product.  I'm sure that 
there's something obvious I'm not seeing.  Perhaps you can clarify the problem?

Cheers,
- -- 
Daniel Carrera         | OpenPGP fingerprint:
Graduate TA, Math Dept | 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88
UMD  (301) 405-5137    | http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (SunOS)

iD8DBQE/C2cfnxE8DWHf+OcRAp6vAJ0a5uP8neYyU2ye/+8ud4CG63szAACg3ywy
6HcpYLzGsiuMUL0lrVINKEQ=
=9e7C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----