GPL v3 and Ruby License.

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Gregory Brown, Apr 4, 2006.

  1. I went to MIT for the Free Software Foundation Associate members
    meeting last weekend. I asked Stallman the question of whether the
    FSF planned to contact various individuals who were using dual
    licenses and encourage them to participate in commenting on GPLv3.

    He sort of yelled at me a lot. Big surprise. You might be able to
    find the recordings of this online sometime soon.

    I talked to some other FSF members, including Executive Director Peter
    Brown, and their suggestion was to encourage community members to come
    use the comment system, and that they'd consider more formal outreach
    programs for the second draft.

    So, here I am making a suggestion that maybe is based on a bit of
    paranoia. We're already having enough of a hard time explaining the
    disjunctive license of Ruby... it'll be a lot harder to explain if
    some people start using GPLv3 and others stick with GPLv2 when the
    final draft rolls around.

    Should the ruby community get active in commenting on GPLv3 in hopes
    of making it possible to switch the ruby license to use it (alongside
    the current, more permissive terms of course), or should we be
    focusing on making a Ruby license that stands on it's own, or should
    we just jump this hurdle down the line when we get to it?

    My main cause for concern is that I really rely on the GPL part of the
    license, since the terms Matz wrote don't seem to be an established
    legal document. I will probably want to use GPLv3 alongside Matz's
    terms for my software when it comes out, but I don't want people to be
    any more confused than they have to about what the "License of Ruby"
    means.

    So... now I've gone and confused myself, but basically... I'm just
    concerned about hybrid Ruby licenses using both GPLv2 and GPLv3
    skulking around out there in the somewhat near future, and am hoping
    that we think about it before it sneaks up on us.
    Gregory Brown, Apr 4, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. The ruby licence seems to simply specify that ruby may be distributed
    either under the GPL version 2 or a separate set of conditions (the
    ruby licence). This license does not currently seem to permit
    distribution under the GPLv3, as the version enclosed is version 2 and
    it never explicitly permits another version to be used (most programs
    would say GPLv2 or any later version).

    Some parts of ruby's standard library actually fall under completely
    separate conditions. These may be affected, but the impact is unlikely
    to be significant.

    Interestingly, it's quite odd that you regard the GPL as an established
    legal document but not Matz's licence. Both licenses are equally valid
    in a legal sense. The ruby licence is actually much more liberal than
    the GPL, and would be my preferred license to receive it under. This is
    just an opinion, but I see no reason for regarding the GPL as a more
    suitable licence simply due to how common it is.
    Timothy Goddard, Apr 5, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gregory Brown

    Guest

    > He sort of yelled at me a lot. Big surprise.

    Not sure if this is sarcasm or not. I went to a GNU/Linux user's group
    meeting a year or two ago where RMS gave a talk, and he mostly just
    seemed like a thoughtful guy who gives away his work under the GPL and
    hopes you'll do the same.

    After his talk, he got a little visibly annoyed at some questioners who
    twice referred to GNU/Linux as "Linux", but that was about it.

    > I'm just concerned about hybrid Ruby licenses using both GPLv2
    > and GPLv3 skulking around out there in the somewhat near future,
    > and am hoping that we think about it before it sneaks up on us.


    I agree. Though, what I think it's important first to know is; what was
    Matz's
    rationale for the dual-licensing in the first place?

    As an aside, I'm a big fan of the GPL. I'm in the US, and businesses
    here are so cutthroat that the protection the GPL offers to keep code
    free (and free of non-freely-distributable "patented software") is
    vital (IMO). I'm guessing perspectives differ in other countries, where
    laws are different regarding social responsibility of corporations.
    , Apr 5, 2006
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Dean
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    491
    Scott Ellsworth
    Dec 2, 2003
  2. Leif K-Brooks
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    393
    Leif K-Brooks
    Aug 8, 2004
  3. Volker Grabsch
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    720
    Michael Hudson
    Jul 25, 2005
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    926
  5. Trans

    MIT vs. Ruby/GPL License

    Trans, Oct 14, 2007, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    316
    Michal Suchanek
    Oct 17, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page