A question on Ruby license

[David Garamond]

Suppose I modify Ruby 1.8.2, create some incompatible changes, and call
it "Ruby 1.8.99". Can I distribute it within my own company? (I assume
yes?) Can I distribute it open-source+Freely on the Internet? What if I
call it "SuperRuby 1.0", or "DavesRuby 1.0" or "Topaz 1.0"? Would that
be called a fork? How does the Ruby copyright/license regulate forks?

Regards,
Dave

 

[Dick Davies]

Suppose I modify Ruby 1.8.2, create some incompatible changes, and call
it "Ruby 1.8.99". Can I distribute it within my own company? (I assume
yes?) Can I distribute it open-source+Freely on the Internet? What if I
call it "SuperRuby 1.0", or "DavesRuby 1.0" or "Topaz 1.0"? Would that
be called a fork? How does the Ruby copyright/license regulate forks?

I think it's a BSD-alike licence, so yes, so long as the derived work
gives credit.

 

[gabriele renzi]

David Garamond ha scritto:

Suppose I modify Ruby 1.8.2, create some incompatible changes, and call
it "Ruby 1.8.99". Can I distribute it within my own company? (I assume
yes?) Can I distribute it open-source+Freely on the Internet? What if I
call it "SuperRuby 1.0", or "DavesRuby 1.0" or "Topaz 1.0"? Would that
be called a fork? How does the Ruby copyright/license regulate forks?

well:
3. You may distribute the software in object code or executable
form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
[...]
c) give non-standard executables non-standard names, with
instructions on where to get the original software distribution.

seems enough to name it Topaz and put instructions.

 

[Douglas Livingstone]

well:

3. You may distribute the software in object code or executable
form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
[...]
c) give non-standard executables non-standard names, with
instructions on where to get the original software distribution.

So not "Ruby 1.8.99" (just to make it clear

Douglas

 

[Yukihiro Matsumoto]

Hi,

In message "Re: A question on Ruby license"
|
|> well:
|> 3. You may distribute the software in object code or executable
|> form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
|> [...]
|> c) give non-standard executables non-standard names, with
|> instructions on where to get the original software distribution.
|
|So not "Ruby 1.8.99" (just to make it clear

If you really want to name it "Ruby 1.8.99", discard the Ruby terms,
and apply GPL only. I don't want it though.

matz.
p.s.
It's OK to fork, or create a new language based on Ruby source code.