From: james_ <james_@...>
Date: 2003-07-10T01:10:30+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

Harry Ohlsen wrote:
> james_b wrote:
> 
>> Now, it might seem disingenuous to be the provider of both the core, 
>> non-GPL app, and one or more GPL'ed helper library classes,
> 
> 
> Of course, you could just tell the user that there's an open source 
> library that might profitably be used *with* your product, which can be 
> downloaded from your web site, where you generously provide a 
> distribution point for ... a very select subset of :-) ... available 
> open source libraries.
> 
> Yes, shockingly devious and I certainly don't recommend that approach !!


Why not?

I hope this topic isn't drifting too far OT, though it strikes me as a
critical area of discussion (but by no means a strictly-Ruby subject).

So, why not write your applications as a set of loosely-coupled objects
or services (probably not a bad idea anyway), with each part licensed in
accordance with your needs and the reqirements of any GPL'ed code?

It's mostly where I'm headed with my own code (at least for the larger
projects), and largely because I want the most flexibility in
determining licensing.  I see nothing devious about it.

BTW, there is a ruby garden wiki page on license issues
(http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?LicenseIssues) but it appears to be
focsed on some specific set of code (maybe the code examples on the Wiki
iteslf?).  The page was last edited on June 24, 2001.  Perhaps we can
co-opt this page for a broader discussion of the topic and collect
references to more definitive information on the varous licensing options.


James