From: Tim Hammerquist <tim@...>
Date: 2003-07-09T11:07:28+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.


Ray Cote graced us by uttering:
> Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > Ray Cote wrote:
> > > I've become quite casual in expecting a certain consistency
> > > of licenses within the community. Perl and Python modules
> > > tend to be distributed under the same license as the base
> > > language.
> > > 
> > > This approach seems less consistent in the Ruby community.

Developers are aware of this in all language communities.  In
fact, the tradition of Perl modules being released under the same
license as the interpreter is just that: a tradition.  It's
recommended that developers release their modules this way for
simplicity, but there's no structure or obligation to it.

In fact, a quick grep of the CPAN reveals several modules release
under the GPL, some under the BSD license, and still others under
completely proprietary licenses.

> > > Specifically, I just happened to look at the source code in
> > > DBI.rb and Oracle.rb and was astonished to discover that
> > > these modules are GPL. Then I quickly found trace.rb, and
> > > proxy.rb were GPL as well.
> > 
> > Well... since you are not linking or modifying the source
> > code of these files I would suppose that the GPL doesn't
> > affect you at all.  You are still able to make your own
> > propietary program and use these external files.
> 
> 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
> ---

<IANAL>

This is discussing libraries in the C/C++ sense.  If your
commercial code includes C code which links directly with the
GPL'd binary libraries from the above-mentioned modules, this
rule might apply.  If, however, you simply use the DBI or Oracle
modules in your Ruby script, this shouldn't apply.

> ---
> 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.
> ---

Again, nowhere have you mentioned that you're linking with a
library released only under the GPL.

> > Secondly, even if it *is* a derivative work, you can still
> > make propietary programs for your own company (but not for
> > your clients).
> 
> Correct. I was referring to products we build and distribute to
> customers.

If you're actually modifying the Ruby code of the module in
question and distributing it, then why shouldn't your mods come
under the same license?  And upon checking, Perl's Artistic
License also requires this.

</IANAL>

If you really want to use Ruby commercially, you'd do far better
to consult an attorney familiar with software licenses than to
post a questionably troll-like usenet article lamenting the loss.

HAND,
Tim Hammerquist
-- 
Windows hasn't increased computer literacy. It's just lowered the standard. 
    -- From a Slashdot.org post