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
* David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> [0131 17:31]:
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.
--
'Yeah, well I'm gonna build my own themepark! With blackjack aaand Hookers!
Actually, forget the park. And the blackjack.'
-- Bender
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
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.
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
Hi,
In message "Re: A question on Ruby license" on Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:46:52 +0900, Douglas Livingstone <rampant@gmail.com> writes:
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.