License policy for RubyOperatingSystem

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Simon Strandgaard, Dec 10, 2003.

  1. We are planning to make a Ruby Operating System (ROS),
    http://ros.rubyforge.org/

    We have some concerns about which license policy we should choose,
    OSI compatibility.. I am no expert on this.

    Any advices/hints/opinions are appreciated ?

    --
    Simon Strandgaard


    citing discussion between shasckaw and me:

    Simon Strandgaard wrote:

    >On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 23:27, Shasckaw wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>>Now this presetation is off, I have another question.
    >>>>What would be the licensing policy of ROS?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>I think overall license should be Ruby License.
    >>>Unless the subproject developers have other ideas, then LGPL and BSD
    >>>license are ok.
    >>>For non-vital stuff, GPL are ok.
    >>>
    >>>How would you like it to be ?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>Whatever the licenses used, they must compatible, the overall system
    >>must be license consistent, and it can be a hard work if we aren't
    >>cautious. If we expect to use a lot of Gnu software, which are most of
    >>time GPLed software, we must be cautious with Gpl compatibility. For the
    >>FSF licenses compatibility analysing, see this page:
    >>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html . Ruby license is not
    >>listed here, too bad.
    >>
    >>*I'm currently seeking additional informations*
    >>I can't find Ruby license on OSI: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
    >>
    >>*after more search*
    >>Ruby has a double licensing, like perl. It can be GPL. The other
    >>possibility is an original one, specific to ruby, and I don't know
    >>anything about its GPL compatibility. Primarly, it seems ok but I'm no
    >>expert.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >You seems to be much more into licenses than what I am.
    >I am really bad at reading licenses because English are not my native
    >language. They trend to use different terminology than what I am
    >familiar with.
    >
    >If you think you have a good understanding of licenses, then you should
    >decide ROS'es license scheme.
    >
    >

    Glups.
    My mother tongue is not english either, it is french (I live in belgium)
    And I'm not lawyer at all.
    And determining a license scheme is a truly hard thing, we must have a
    really clear idea of the organisation of Ros.

    What I know about licenses tell me that their use is easy when you just
    use one license with no third party code with different license, and
    their use is headache when you want to use multiple licensing or when
    you want to keep the copyright. And you can rapidly use multiple
    licensing just when using third party code.

    How can we know how to do?
    Well, what about asking FSF or OSI about the compatibility of Ruby
    license with GPL and others?
    Simon Strandgaard, Dec 10, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Simon Strandgaard

    Paul William Guest

    Make it was same as ruby.

    On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 08:17, Simon Strandgaard wrote:
    > We are planning to make a Ruby Operating System (ROS),
    > http://ros.rubyforge.org/
    >
    > We have some concerns about which license policy we should choose,
    > OSI compatibility.. I am no expert on this.
    >
    > Any advices/hints/opinions are appreciated ?
    >
    > --
    > Simon Strandgaard
    >
    >
    > citing discussion between shasckaw and me:
    >
    > Simon Strandgaard wrote:
    >
    > >On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 23:27, Shasckaw wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>>>Now this presetation is off, I have another question.
    > >>>>What would be the licensing policy of ROS?
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>I think overall license should be Ruby License.
    > >>>Unless the subproject developers have other ideas, then LGPL and BSD
    > >>>license are ok.
    > >>>For non-vital stuff, GPL are ok.
    > >>>
    > >>>How would you like it to be ?
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>Whatever the licenses used, they must compatible, the overall system
    > >>must be license consistent, and it can be a hard work if we aren't
    > >>cautious. If we expect to use a lot of Gnu software, which are most of
    > >>time GPLed software, we must be cautious with Gpl compatibility. For the
    > >>FSF licenses compatibility analysing, see this page:
    > >>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html . Ruby license is not
    > >>listed here, too bad.
    > >>
    > >>*I'm currently seeking additional informations*
    > >>I can't find Ruby license on OSI: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
    > >>
    > >>*after more search*
    > >>Ruby has a double licensing, like perl. It can be GPL. The other
    > >>possibility is an original one, specific to ruby, and I don't know
    > >>anything about its GPL compatibility. Primarly, it seems ok but I'm no
    > >>expert.
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >You seems to be much more into licenses than what I am.
    > >I am really bad at reading licenses because English are not my native
    > >language. They trend to use different terminology than what I am
    > >familiar with.
    > >
    > >If you think you have a good understanding of licenses, then you should
    > >decide ROS'es license scheme.
    > >
    > >

    > Glups.
    > My mother tongue is not english either, it is french (I live in belgium)
    > And I'm not lawyer at all.
    > And determining a license scheme is a truly hard thing, we must have a
    > really clear idea of the organisation of Ros.
    >
    > What I know about licenses tell me that their use is easy when you just
    > use one license with no third party code with different license, and
    > their use is headache when you want to use multiple licensing or when
    > you want to keep the copyright. And you can rapidly use multiple
    > licensing just when using third party code.
    >
    > How can we know how to do?
    > Well, what about asking FSF or OSI about the compatibility of Ruby
    > license with GPL and others?

    --

    .''`. Paul William
    : :' : Debian admin and user
    `. `'`
    `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
    Paul William, Dec 12, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:06:19 +0900, Paul William wrote:
    > On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 08:17, Simon Strandgaard wrote:
    >> We are planning to make a Ruby Operating System (ROS),
    >> http://ros.rubyforge.org/
    >>
    >> We have some concerns about which license policy we should choose,
    >> OSI compatibility.. I am no expert on this.
    >>
    >> Any advices/hints/opinions are appreciated ?

    >
    >
    > Make it was same as ruby.



    That were also my initial idea, but as Shasckaw points out,
    the Ruby license are not present neither at
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

    nor at
    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/


    Is Ruby License OSI compatible ?

    --
    Simon Strandgaard
    Simon Strandgaard, Dec 13, 2003
    #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. Bryan Linton
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    725
    Bryan Linton
    Feb 14, 2005
  2. Chance Hopkins

    Re: Error Security Policy.

    Chance Hopkins, Jun 28, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    430
    Chance Hopkins
    Jun 28, 2003
  3. Terry Orzechowski

    Error Security Policy - More information

    Terry Orzechowski, Jun 28, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    388
    Terry Orzechowski
    Jun 28, 2003
  4. charles

    Compact Privacy Policy?

    charles, Jun 30, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    434
    JiangZemin
    Jul 1, 2003
  5. Volker Grabsch
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    728
    Michael Hudson
    Jul 25, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page