OS-independent build of ruby

ruby-talk
21

Hi Dave,

“Jan Arne Petersen” jpetersen@uni-bonn.de writes:

  1. We are working hard to release JRuby also under the LGPL. I spend
    a lot of time to create JRuby and I never get any money for this work neither direct nor
    indirect. It is very depressing to be confronted with your reproachs.

I agree that the original e-mail might have been somewhat too aggressive. Assuming that no original
licenses are broken, you clearly have the right to use whatever license you want for JRuby. I
respect your flexibility at adding the LGPL in to the mix.

To understand that I am annoyed you should know that Austin wrote me some very aggressive private
mails. (Normally I wouldn’t mention private mails but he starts the public discussion)

Personally, I dislike releasing under the (L)GPL. I write software for other people to use. I would
encourage the JRuby folks to spend time considering the downsides of a more liberal license (and I’d
be happy to discuss this off-list with them if they wanted), but I’d defend their right to use any
licensing terms they can legally use.

Personally, I would release JRuby under an Apache like license but it isn’t a question of my
opinion. Also it isn’t only a question of the present JRuby team because there are past contributors
to the JRuby project which don’t support such a license. Currently we don’t have the resources to
replace their code.
We should also discuss about this license changing problem and how we could prevent it in the future.

Regards
Jan Arne

···

On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:25:39 +0000, Dave Thomas wrote:

22

In article alg1li$3ic$02$1@news.t-online.com,

if you don’t like the JRuby project and want to stop it you are on the
right way.

Grow up and get professional.

This sort of statement is unjustified, uncalled for…

The reason people are not thrilled is that
they may be interested in using Jruby on commercial projects; the GNU
licenses restrict this.

Why couldn’t you use JRuby on commercial projects? What’s stopping you?
The GPL only keeps you from profitting from the hard work of others.

Actually you can use JRuby all you like, you can even even sell CDs with
JRUby on it… as long as you make the sourcecode available.

If you don’t like JRuby’s license then create your own project which is
covered by whatever license you prefer.

Phil

···

reckless reckless2k@yahoo.com wrote:

23

Austin Ziegler wrote:

However, as someone who uses Ruby and might consider JRuby, it does
matter to me. As such, it’s definitely my right and responsibility
to comment. It’s also my right and responsibility to raise this
issue in a forum where the original copyright holders – who appear
not to have been consulted about the choice of only one of the two
available licences – can be notified.

Hi Austin,

I’ve seen smoother entry to a user community than calling the software’s
licence “nasty”. :wink:

I think, then, that there’s a problem. My understanding is that when
a program is dual-licensed, you have the option of accepting it
under either of the licences available. However, modified versions
must be released under both (or all) existing licences. I’ve put
this question to Lawrence Rosen (lrosen@rosenlaw.com) who writes for
one of LJ or LM. I haven’t given details except the fact that the
original project is under GNU GPL and/or artistic-style and the
forked project is only available under GNU GPL.

Once one has chosen a licence, that licence applies to both useing,
modifying and distributing, as far as I understand. But I’m not really
interested in any legal hair-splitting. Our intentions are simply to
find the licencing that works best. As you so bluntly pointed out,
GPL-only doesn’t work well for JRuby.

I am curious, though: why didn’t the main contributors want to use
Ruby’s licences (both of them)?

From what I’ve heard, the problem was mostly that a few details in the
Ruby licence don’t work well with a Java program. But the main reason is
probably that the Ruby syntax parser that was used as the start of the
JRuby project was GPLed, so the easiest thing was to just continue with
that.
Now we’re in the middle of changing licences, but these things take
time.

/Anders

···

–

A n d e r s B e n g t s s o n | ndrsbngtssn@yahoo.se
Stockholm, Sweden |

Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

24
  1. It isn’t a question of your opinion but a question of the license. I will discuss this topic
    only with the copyright holders of the original ruby because in my opinion copyright violation is
    a very hard accusation.

You’re right. It’s not a question of my opinion – it’s a question of the opinions of the copyright
holders on Ruby and all of the modifications to Ruby up until the point from which you diverged from
the existing source.

However, as someone who uses Ruby and might consider JRuby, it does matter to me. As such, it’s
definitely my right and responsibility to comment. It’s also my right and responsibility to raise
this issue in a forum where the original copyright holders – who appear not to have been consulted
about the choice of only one of the two available licences – can be notified.

I don’t have a problem to discuss about licenses but I have a problem if someone wants to
aggressively force me to change the license of a project.

  1. Main contributors of JRuby don’t want to license JRuby under the Ruby license. If we really
    have to use also the Ruby license we could throw away the whole existing JRuby code and restart
    from nothing. But it should be clear that I wouldn’t do this work again.

I think, then, that there’s a problem. My understanding is that when a program is dual-licensed, you
have the option of accepting it under either of the licences available.

We choose the GPL and get some rights and duties.

However, modified versions
must be released under both (or all) existing licences. I’ve put this question to Lawrence Rosen
(lrosen@rosenlaw.com) who writes for one of LJ or LM. I haven’t given details except the fact that
the original project is under GNU GPL and/or artistic-style and the forked project is only available
under GNU GPL.

I’m interested in his answer, too. But I wouldn’t classify JRuby as a fork.

I could be wrong. But even if I am legally wrong in my interpretation, it seems to go against the
spirit of dually licenced software to do what you’ve done, which is to choose the worse of the two
licences that Ruby has available.

That can be only discussed with the original copyright holders because it is your subjective opinion
that the GPL is the “worse” license.

I am curious, though: why didn’t the main contributors want to use Ruby’s licences (both of them)?

These main contributors are not necessarily the current contributors. But I don’t want a public
discussion about the decisions.

  1. We are working hard to release JRuby also under the LGPL. I spend a lot of time to create JRuby
    and I never get any money for this work neither direct nor indirect. It is very depressing to be
    confronted with your reproachs.

I’m not giving reproach. I’m raising questions. I think your effort is likely to be a good thing,
but I think that your licencing choices may have been misguided. As I said in response to Anders, I
think that LGPL + GPL is better, especially because of the problems that the GPL has with dynamic
languages, but I still don’t necessarily think that it’s “right”.

I see your mails as the attempt to aggressively force us to change the license. If that is not your
intention you shouldn’t start such a “campaign”.

If you want to use JRuby under another license you can contact us (with an adequate email) but if
you don’t like the JRuby project and want to stop it you are on the right way.

I’m not interested in stopping the JRuby project. IMO, if it were licensed properly, it could make a
good basis for a Ruby.NET. I’m just disappointed that people who obviously like a language and it’s
implementation enough to reuse it don’t choose the whole of the licensing conditions under which it
is available.

It isn’t only a question about our current decisions but also a question of the project history and
copyright laws. If you had asked me why whe choose this license, I would have explained you the exact
reasons for our decision.

Jan Arne Petersen

···

On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 05:47:17 +0000, Austin Ziegler wrote:

25

However, as someone who uses Ruby and might consider JRuby, it does
matter to me. As such, it’s definitely my right and responsibility
to comment.

Is a rude tone is likely to help your case? Especially when dealing with
people which you don’t pay? (See: I’m asking questions! I don’t accuse.)

It’s also my right and responsibility to raise this
issue in a forum where the original copyright holders
– who appear not to have been consulted about the choice of only one
of the two available licences –
can be notified.

Why this – comment --? Do you think there is an obligation to consult
them? Or would politeness dictate consultation? Or ethics?

You may notify anyone you want. In this case, you can be sure that (a)
Matz knew about JRuby before you posted, (b) the JRuby authors had no
obligation whatsover to inform any copyright holders about the existance
of JRuby.

I think, then, that there’s a problem. My understanding is that when
a program is dual-licensed, you have the option of accepting it
under either of the licences available.

What do you mean by “accepting it”? You don’t need to accept any license
to use ruby. Only if you want to copy, modify, or distribute it.
Because these actions are prohibited by copyright laws in most countries,
you need permission for doing them. We usually call this permission
“license”. The permission may come at the cost of some obligations.

Please do explain what you mean by “accepting it” when you don’t intend to
copy, modify, or distribute Ruby.

Apart from that, there is no standard for dual-licensing. Your rights and
duties depend on the precise text that states the dual-licensed-ness. In
this case:

You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the
GPL (see the file GPL), or the conditions below: […]

Strictly speaking, this is ruby’s license (if you include the GPL and
the “conditions below”). You may call it a dual-licensed scheme, but
that’s only your perception.

However, modified versions
must be released under both (or all) existing licences.

This is plain wrong. What you might have once heard and might now have in
mind, that leads you to this idea, is that you cannot change the license
that covers the original code, even when it is part of the modified work.
The author of the modified work can choose any license he wants for his
modifications and the modified work as a whole, as long as he makes sure
that he complies to the license that covers the original code. It is
completely irrelevant if that license is a “dual-license” or not.

Here, in Ruby’s case, your statement explicitly contradicts with the main
statement of Ruby’s license. This raises one question: Did you actually
read Ruby’s license?

I’ve put
this question to Lawrence Rosen (lrosen@rosenlaw.com) who writes for
one of LJ or LM. I haven’t given details except the fact that the
original project is under GNU GPL and/or artistic-style and the
forked project is only available under GNU GPL.

Could it be you should have asked before posting here (or refrain from
insinuating a possible license breach)? Your expert will need details on
the “and/or” part to be able to judge this case.

I could be wrong. But even if I am legally wrong in my
interpretation, it seems to go against the spirit of dually licenced
software to do what you’ve done, which is to choose the worse of the
two licences that Ruby has available.

You are wrong, and your statement covering this possibility is amusing at
best. As if there were a consensus on which one is the worse of any two
licenses. Besides, can you please explain what you mean by “the spirit of
dually licenced software”? (Feel free to point me to a web resource that
covers this.)

···

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Austin Ziegler wrote:

26

BTW, I’m having a discussion with the lead developer on the JRuby
project about this, and how I personally believe that he’s rather
twisted the spirit of Ruby’s artistic licence by choosing only the
GPL. IMO, JRuby shouldn’t be considered a Ruby unless it’s under the
same licensing conditions as Ruby – which is friendly to all
comers, unlike GPLed programs.

-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.09.08 at 09.55.21

···

On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 12:02:39 +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:

On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 11:52:15 +0900, Christian Szegedy wrote:

Austin Ziegler wrote:

I’m not super sure; it’s likely based on the existing source and
claims to be 1.6.7 compatible for most purposes), but it’s still
nasty, IMO, not to do it under the same licence as the base
implementation.
It is as nasty as releasing gcc under GPL :slight_smile:
Well, no, because gcc explicitly states that output is simply
that, and isn’t covered. It’s more like releasing “bison” under
the GPL. The difference, of course, is that because Java is a
relatively dynamic language, you may have a GPL-conflict without
even knowing it. In theory, you could use JRuby to script
JavaBeans; however, if those Beans are under a non-GPL-friendly
licence, and you may not know it if it’s something sent to you by
an application server, then you have violated the GPL. Further,
JRuby is intended to be embedded in Java applications, which means
that they must be GPLed or able to be taken over by the GPL.

27

matz@ruby-lang.org (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

Or simpler license like the following.

Permission is granted for use, copying, modification, distribution,
and distribution of modified versions of this work as long as the
above copyright notice is included.

Rite will be released under this license.

Matz:

Are you going to allow modified versions to be called ‘Ruby’?

Dave

28

I really like it but I’m surprised it doesn’t include a liability
clause.

···

On Sunday, September 8, 2002, at 09:21 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

Or simpler license like the following.

Permission is granted for use, copying, modification, distribution,
and distribution of modified versions of this work as long as the
above copyright notice is included.

Rite will be released under this license.

  					matz.

–
We are all born originals - why is it so many of us die copies?
-Edward Young, poet (1683-1765)

29

LOL
This proofes that you have never been involved in the very hard
process to sell software. There is no way to make a living with GPL
software, except for a few persons, but not for a whole industry.

···

On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:55:17 GMT, nico n1k0@rogers.com wrote:

On September 8, 2002 01:49 pm, reckless wrote:

if you don’t like the JRuby project and want to stop it you are on the

right way.

Grow up and get professional. The reason people are not thrilled is that
they may be interested in using Jruby on commercial projects; the GNU
licenses restrict this. This is great for the open source community, but
not so great for commercial developers who what to take advantage of open
source. It all depends on what market you want to reach with your product
or if you don’t want to support commercial development with open source
products… Which is perfectly legitimate.

Jeremy

I don’t see the problem for commercial developers. They can still sell their
software as long as they make it GPLed.

30

Jan,

This thread is reminding me of a question I asked once before but
never got an answer to. Are there any plans to support continuations
in JRuby? I think I remember that you’re using the Java stack, which
would make callcc rather difficult to implement…

Cheers,
Avi

31

You don’t read the mails Austin wrote to me. But there is a big
difference if you start a conversation with a request for another
license (because you want to use JRuby in a commercial
application) or with the unfounded reproach of copyright
violation.

Mr Petersen:

···

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 03:49:27 +0900, Jan Arne Petersen wrote:

At no time in my emails here or to you directly have I suggested that there is a copyright violation. In my first email asking you the question, I said:

"[Because JRuby is likely implemented from the C version because
 there is no language specification document,] wouldn't it be,
 then, that JRuby would have to be under the same licence or
 licences as Ruby itself, to wit [...]

"I'm quite curious about this, as it seems improper for you to
 choose only one of the two licences in which Ruby is
 available."

This asked a question. My statement of “improper” has nothing to do
with what is legal, but what is ethical. I don’t consider your
choice ethical. It may also not be legal, but I’m not really in a
position to complain about that, nor am I a lawyer to know whether
or not it is a true statement. I have put the question to a lawyer
well-known in the OSS community, and will happily share the answer.

In my second email, I went as far to state:

"I'll grant that you *can* do that; I'm not sure that you
 *should* have done that, as it seems to violate the spirit of
 the Ruby community."

I also indicated that as far as I know, the LGPL isn’t really an
option insofar as the codebase you have is still derivative of the
original Ruby source – because Ruby itself isn’t under the LGPL.

So please, Mr Petersen, do not try to claim that I reproached you
for copyright violation – merely the spirit of licences. Any
reproach is entirely in your reading.

I’ve asked questions. I have NOT accused, and I don’t appreciate it
when people suggest that I have.

-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.09.09 at 01.52.55

32

Hi Phil,

A lot gets lost in this kind of communication, but, to clarify:

  1. “Grow up and get professional” was in response to Mr. Petersen
    threatening to cancel the project based on the license “gripes”. This was
    not intended as an insult, but as advice.

2). The last statement in my post was: “which is perfectly legitimate”;
referring to the decision not to share open source material with commercial
agencies. Before you go off on me for dissing open source and the blood and
sweat of it’s developers… take the time to understand what you are
responding to.

I hope that clears things up. But, I should have known better than to share
my opinion on this forum. We all know how agitated people can get… from
now on I will keep it Ruby-related :slight_smile:

Jeremy

“Phil Tomson” ptkwt@shell1.aracnet.com wrote in message
news:algl3j02nc3@enews2.newsguy.com…

···

In article alg1li$3ic$02$1@news.t-online.com,
reckless reckless2k@yahoo.com wrote:

if you don’t like the JRuby project and want to stop it you are on the
right way.

Grow up and get professional.

This sort of statement is unjustified, uncalled for…

The reason people are not thrilled is that
they may be interested in using Jruby on commercial projects; the GNU
licenses restrict this.

Why couldn’t you use JRuby on commercial projects? What’s stopping you?
The GPL only keeps you from profitting from the hard work of others.

Actually you can use JRuby all you like, you can even even sell CDs with
JRUby on it… as long as you make the sourcecode available.

If you don’t like JRuby’s license then create your own project which is
covered by whatever license you prefer.

Phil

33

Phil Tomson wrote:

The reason people are not thrilled is that
they may be interested in using Jruby on commercial projects; the GNU
licenses restrict this.

Why couldn’t you use JRuby on commercial projects? What’s stopping you?
The GPL only keeps you from profitting from the hard work of others.

One obvious use of JRuby is to embed it in other applications, to
provide scripting support. Most of the people who have been in contact
with us seem to be doing this.
I think this is only possible if that application is also GPL, which
most applications aren’t. This is why we’re working to add other
licencing options for JRuby.

Personally I would be proud if anyone managed to profit from my work.
:slight_smile:

/Anders

···

–

A n d e r s B e n g t s s o n | ndrsbngtssn@yahoo.se
Stockholm, Sweden |

Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

34

Austin Ziegler wrote:

However, as someone who uses Ruby and might consider JRuby, it
does matter to me. As such, it’s definitely my right and
responsibility to comment. It’s also my right and responsibility
to raise this issue in a forum where the original copyright
holders – who appear not to have been consulted about the choice
of only one of the two available licences – can be notified.
I’ve seen smoother entry to a user community than calling the
software’s licence “nasty”. :wink:

Fair enough. In my defence, though, I will note that I was
considering the limitation of the licence from the two that Ruby has
chosen to the one that is (IMO & E) least useful for the chosen
implementation framework to be seemingly nasty. Again, it’s not so
much the licence being nasty as the apparent violation of the
spirit behind Ruby.

I think, then, that there’s a problem. My understanding is that
when a program is dual-licensed, you have the option of accepting
it under either of the licences available. However, modified
versions must be released under both (or all) existing
licences. I’ve put this question to Lawrence Rosen
(lrosen@rosenlaw.com) who writes for one of LJ or LM. I haven’t
given details except the fact that the original project is under
GNU GPL and/or artistic-style and the forked project is only
available under GNU GPL.
Once one has chosen a licence, that licence applies to both
useing, modifying and distributing, as far as I understand. But
I’m not really interested in any legal hair-splitting. Our
intentions are simply to find the licencing that works best. As
you so bluntly pointed out, GPL-only doesn’t work well for JRuby.

I think it’s an interesting question, and I’ll definitely be
forwarding on any answer that I get to the question – but I think
that the resolution is to give JRuby a better licence. As I’ve said,
I think that the LGPL is a better choice than the GPL, especially
for working in a Java environment (or possibly in a .NET environment
if it’s ported later).

I am curious, though: why didn’t the main contributors want to
use Ruby’s licences (both of them)?
From what I’ve heard, the problem was mostly that a few details in
the Ruby licence don’t work well with a Java program. But the main
reason is probably that the Ruby syntax parser that was used as
the start of the JRuby project was GPLed, so the easiest thing was
to just continue with that. Now we’re in the middle of changing
licences, but these things take time.

I don’t understand the former. I can see nothing in there which
is incompatible with Java in any way, whereas the GPL is wholly
incompatible with fully dynamic environments (in part because of
Stallman’s interpretation of dynamic linking and linking as being
identical).

The latter make sense, but it still seems strange to me that a bit
more effort wasn’t made to make sure that item was available under a
more liberal licence (even the LGPL) in the first place, which would
have freed up the choices for the rest of the developers. Of course,
such effort could have been made and I simply don’t know about it.
(Then again, I’m always baffled by people who do Java stuff under
the GPL, when it’s clearly inappropriate because everything is
dynamically linked and therefore ripe for instant and continuous
violations of the GPL.)

-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.09.09 at 09.39.28

···

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 18:36:41 +0900, Anders Bengtsson wrote:

35
  1. It isn’t a question of your opinion but a question of the
    license. I will discuss this topic only with the copyright
    holders of the original ruby because in my opinion copyright
    violation is a very hard accusation.
    You’re right. It’s not a question of my opinion – it’s a
    question of the opinions of the copyright holders on Ruby and all
    of the modifications to Ruby up until the point from which you
    diverged from the existing source.

However, as someone who uses Ruby and might consider JRuby, it
does matter to me. As such, it’s definitely my right and
responsibility to comment. It’s also my right and responsibility
to raise this issue in a forum where the original copyright
holders – who appear not to have been consulted about the choice
of only one of the two available licences – can be notified.
I don’t have a problem to discuss about licenses but I have a
problem if someone wants to aggressively force me to change the
license of a project.

Jan, not once have I suggested that you change the licences. I have
asked questions. As I said in my second email to you, it appears
that it may have been the JRuby project’s legal licensed right to do
exactly what it did, but I don’t think it’s an ethical thing to have
done. You can keep on doing whatever you want without regard to my
belief that this is ethical or not (or even polite, which is where
the ‘nasty’ came in) – but in no way does my mere opinion
constitute a campaign (aggressive or otherwise) to force you to
change the licence of a project. If that’s how you’ve interpreted my
emails both privately and publically, then I think that you’re being
overly sensitive on the matter.

To clarify: I don’t think that it was ethically correct to choose
only the worse of the available licences, nor do I think it was
polite. You can take that as you will, and if you believe that I’m
simply spouting silliness, you’re entirely free to do that. The only
ones who may have the power to force you to change the licence for
JRuby are those who have copyright interests in your program.

  1. Main contributors of JRuby don’t want to license JRuby under
    the Ruby license. If we really have to use also the Ruby
    license we could throw away the whole existing JRuby code and
    restart from nothing. But it should be clear that I wouldn’t do
    this work again.
    I think, then, that there’s a problem. My understanding is that
    when a program is dual-licensed, you have the option of accepting
    it under either of the licences available.
    We choose the GPL and get some rights and duties.

Sorry – I forgot to complete my thought here. Just because you’ve
accepted the software under one licence over another does not remove
the fact that it is in fact licensed under both licences and both
apply fully at all times. At least, that’s my understanding.

However, modified versions must be released under both (or all)
existing licences. I’ve put this question to Lawrence Rosen
(lrosen@rosenlaw.com) who writes for one of LJ or LM. I haven’t
given details except the fact that the original project is under
GNU GPL and/or artistic-style and the forked project is only
available under GNU GPL.
I’m interested in his answer, too. But I wouldn’t classify JRuby
as a fork.

JRuby is a fork and a port both. I’m considering doing a Delphi
fork/port of libgtkhtml – but I still feel that I’ll be bound by
the libgtkhtml licence, even though I’ll be rewriting 90% or more
of the code because Delphi doesn’t do GTK+ (thankfully). Thus, I
have to seriously consider whether I want to invest that effort.

I could be wrong. But even if I am legally wrong in my
interpretation, it seems to go against the spirit of dually
licenced software to do what you’ve done, which is to choose the
worse of the two licences that Ruby has available.
That can be only discussed with the original copyright holders
because it is your subjective opinion that the GPL is the “worse”
license.

Actually, no, it can be discussed with anyone. Only the original
copyright holders can actively request that you do anything about
it. And, with respect to the dynamism which is Java, the GPL is
definitely the worse of the two licences, as there’s absolutely no
way to prevent or detect violations of the GPL (because it may be
done automatically by the programs).

I am curious, though: why didn’t the main contributors want to
use Ruby’s licences (both of them)?
These main contributors are not necessarily the current
contributors. But I don’t want a public discussion about the
decisions.

Why not?

  1. We are working hard to release JRuby also under the LGPL. I
    spend a lot of time to create JRuby and I never get any money
    for this work neither direct nor indirect. It is very depressing
    to be confronted with your reproachs.
    I’m not giving reproach. I’m raising questions. I think your
    effort is likely to be a good thing, but I think that your
    licencing choices may have been misguided. As I said in response
    to Anders, I think that LGPL + GPL is better, especially
    because of the problems that the GPL has with dynamic languages,
    but I still don’t necessarily think that it’s “right”.
    I see your mails as the attempt to aggressively force us to change
    the license. If that is not your intention you shouldn’t start
    such a “campaign”.

I haven’t campaigned. I haven’t been agggressive. I am most
assuredly not trying to force you to do anything. I’m asking
questions. If being asked questions about something causes YOU
problems, then I can’t help that. It does suggest that the original
decision bothers you and perhaps wasn’t the best choice. But I
haven’t yet said that you “had better” change the licence. I just
think that there is a question of politeness (even more than ethics,
and definitely outside of the realm of what is legal).

If you want to use JRuby under another license you can contact
us (with an adequate email) but if you don’t like the JRuby
project and want to stop it you are on the right way.
I’m not interested in stopping the JRuby project. IMO, if it were
licensed properly, it could make a good basis for a Ruby.NET. I’m
just disappointed that people who obviously like a language and
it’s implementation enough to reuse it don’t choose the whole of
the licensing conditions under which it is available.
It isn’t only a question about our current decisions but also a
question of the project history and copyright laws. If you had
asked me why whe choose this license, I would have explained you
the exact reasons for our decision.

Odd. I would have personally taken it upon myself to explain why to
anyone who asks about the licence and why it diverges from Ruby’s
licence.

-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.09.09 at 10.01.28

···

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:11:12 +0900, Jan Arne Petersen wrote:

On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 05:47:17 +0000, Austin Ziegler wrote:

36

This message was written several days ago and should not reflect a
continuation of the discussion which appears to have subsided.

-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.09.10 at 15.17.16

···

On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 03:55:58 +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:

37

My point was there’s nothing stopping someone from selling it GPLed software,
how they plan to make money by doing so is up to them.

You should understand the difference between proprietary and commercial
software.

···

On September 8, 2002 06:09 pm, Lothar Scholz wrote:

On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:55:17 GMT, nico n1k0@rogers.com wrote:

On September 8, 2002 01:49 pm, reckless wrote:

if you don’t like the JRuby project and want to stop it you are on the

right way.

Grow up and get professional. The reason people are not thrilled is that
they may be interested in using Jruby on commercial projects; the GNU
licenses restrict this. This is great for the open source community, but
not so great for commercial developers who what to take advantage of
open source. It all depends on what market you want to reach with your
product or if you don’t want to support commercial development with open
source products… Which is perfectly legitimate.

Jeremy

I don’t see the problem for commercial developers. They can still sell
their software as long as they make it GPLed.

LOL
This proofes that you have never been involved in the very hard
process to sell software. There is no way to make a living with GPL
software, except for a few persons, but not for a whole industry.

–
To call me “awesome” is an understatement.

38

Hi,

Permission is granted for use, copying, modification, distribution,
and distribution of modified versions of this work as long as the
above copyright notice is included.

Rite will be released under this license.

Matz:

Are you going to allow modified versions to be called ‘Ruby’?

That’s one thing which is prohibited by the current license. When I
made up the current license, I felt it was a must. But I now think no
one would choose to use the name Ruby for a modified version, unless
the one is irrational or has intention to cause confusion. License
has no power for both cases. Interestingly, this is not prohibited by
GPL either.

I even suspect no one wants to make modified version ever.

						matz.
···

In message “Re: JRuby (was Re: OS-independent build of ruby)” on 02/09/09, Dave Thomas Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com writes:

39

I would suggest that the licence be slightly more complex than that,
because the use of Ruby should not require one include a copyright
notice.

-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.09.09 at 01.25.44

···

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 01:42:39 +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:

matz@ruby-lang.org (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

Or simpler license like the following.

Permission is granted for use, copying, modification,
distribution, and distribution of modified versions of this work
as long as the above copyright notice is included.

Rite will be released under this license.
Are you going to allow modified versions to be called ‘Ruby’?

40

Austin Ziegler wrote:

I think it’s an interesting question, and I’ll definitely be
forwarding on any answer that I get to the question – but I think
that the resolution is to give JRuby a better licence. As I’ve said,
I think that the LGPL is a better choice than the GPL, especially
for working in a Java environment (or possibly in a .NET environment
if it’s ported later).

I haven’t looked too much into .NET, but it would sure be nice if JRuby
could be useful for a port. At the very least there should be possible
to share ruby-in-ruby implementations for the ports. The MetaRuby
project have already done some really interesting work in this area.

The latter make sense, but it still seems strange to me that a bit
more effort wasn’t made to make sure that item was available under a
more liberal licence (even the LGPL) in the first place, which would
have freed up the choices for the rest of the developers. Of course,
such effort could have been made and I simply don’t know about it.

Yes, much effort has been made. You didn’t know about it since you
didn’t ask.

/Anders

···

–

A n d e r s B e n g t s s o n | ndrsbngtssn@yahoo.se
Stockholm, Sweden |

Följ VM på nära håll på Yahoo!s officielle VM-sajt www.yahoo.se/vm2002
Håll dig ajour med nyheter och resultat, med vinnare och förlorare…