From: Stephyn Butcher Date: 2003-07-09T10:57:11+09:00 Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby. --Apple-Mail-2--48266320 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed They don't call GPL a legal virus for nothing: I think the next section is more relevant. It concludes with: "Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl comes with many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with many Java classes. These libraries and the programs that call them are always dynamically linked together. A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on. " This would seem to apply to Ruby in a similar way. Steve On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 08:51 PM, Daniel Carrera wrote: > -----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: >> >> >> --- >> 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. > Based on the above, I think it would be that simple. This is the main reason for LGPL and other similar open-source licenses. We want to share but we still gotta eat. --Apple-Mail-2--48266320 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII ArialThey don't call GPL a legal virus for nothing: I think the next section is more relevant. It concludes with: "Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl comes with many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with many Java classes. These libraries and the programs that call them are always dynamically linked together. A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on. " This would seem to apply to Ruby in a similar way. Steve On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 08:51 PM, Daniel Carrera wrote: -----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: < --- 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. Based on the above, I think it would be that simple. This is the main reason for LGPL and other similar open-source licenses. We want to share but we still gotta eat. --Apple-Mail-2--48266320--