I understand that the distribution of Ruby is under the GPL.
Would I be correct in assuming that any commercial product which
embedded the standard Ruby interpreter would also require be GPL if
shipped, or is there current (or planned) provision to only require
LGPL under those circumstances?
The Ruby license is *not* GPL. There is a complete copy of what it is
currently under available online [1]. It is referred to as the Ruby
License. It bares strong resemblance to the Perl license. This should
not inhibit commercial use to Ruby in most cases.
Note that some parts also contain other special licenses. See your
specific ruby version's source tarball for a LEGAL file which should
give you an overview. If you have any further questions please ask.
Brian.
[1] http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt
···
On 9/30/05, netspam@shic.co.uk <netspam@shic.co.uk> wrote:
I understand that the distribution of Ruby is under the GPL.
Would I be correct in assuming that any commercial product which
embedded the standard Ruby interpreter would also require be GPL if
shipped, or is there current (or planned) provision to only require
LGPL under those circumstances?
The Ruby License and the License of Ruby are two different things.
The Ruby License is the license which Matz wrote for Ruby. The license
of the ruby distribution itself is a disjunctive license which gives
the user a choice of distributing under either of the two licenses.
You are free to follow the terms of either license. For your own
applications, if you choose to follow the restrictions of the GPL, you
need to ensure you use a GPL compatible license, but it needn't
necessarily be the GPL. The various MIT / BSD style licenses are
mostly GPL compatible, as are many other license. A full list of GPL
compatible licenses according to the Free Software foundation can be
found here:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
If you are not planning on using GPLed libraries or other things under
the restrictions of the GPL, under the Ruby license you can basically
use whatever licensing you'd like, but bear in mind that the Free
Software Foundation does not consider the Ruby license on it's own as
free software, therefore you will prevent people from linking your code
with GPLed code if you use just the ruby license or some other non-free
license.
This is indeed quite similar to the License of Perl, which offers a
choice of the Artistic License or the GPL.
As a side note, the Ruby community seems to have a tradition towards
the BSD style licenses. My role as a free software advocate is to
whine about the fact that these licenses do not offer a strong
copyleft. However, it seems like such a thing is exactly what you'd
like to avoid, so these licenses might fit your needs well as well as
provide some freedom to your work.
The compromise that will make most Rubyists willing to use your
software regardless of their politics is to offer a disjunctive license
such as the License of Ruby (Ruby License / GPL) or any other mix and
match choice that allows the GPL as an option. However, I'm sure some
of the Gurus will say, just BSD the sucker!, and I will try not to make
my case for the FSF too strongly.
I work on commercial code under the License of Ruby, and have not run
into any issues with the scheme, if that's of any help.
Hope this helps.
-Greg
*GASP*
Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!!
</sarcasm>
(Note, I'm currently working on commercial software. Smile a little. It's
ok.)
···
On Saturday 01 October 2005 20:51, Gregory Brown wrote:
My role as a free software advocate is to
whine about the fact that these licenses do not offer a strong
copyleft.
[*snip*]I work on commercial code... [*snip*]
Thanks! I see I was wrongly/under informed here... I hadn't intended
to start a discussion about ideologies. 
My interest is in the context of a project centred on a closed-source
core which needs to be extended to allow scripting of its abilities. I
can envision freely shared embedded scripts - but this is not an
option for the existing project core. Ruby looks as if it would be a
great language to embed from a technical perspective, but (as this is
one of several potential approaches) I want to be sure that using Ruby
in this way would not be prohibited (or frowned upon by the ruby
community.)
If Ruby were to be used, the standard ruby distribution would need to
be shipped, there would be a number of sample 'fragments' of Ruby
source code (public domain licence here would be ideal) and a simple
library of 'helpful' ruby classes likely to be useful to people
extending the closed system with their own bespoke scripts. There
would also need to be several proprietary 'server' executables into
which a Ruby interpreter has been embedded. These would definitely not
comply with the GPL as not all the source code can be shipped for these
executables.
(I think) you've confirmed that Ruby should not pose a licence
problem in this context. I'll have to carefully read the licence of
the distribution before any decision is made.
Thanks again,
Steve
Kevin Brown <blargity@gmail.com> writes:
My role as a free software advocate is to
whine about the fact that these licenses do not offer a strong
copyleft.
[*snip*]I work on commercial code... [*snip*]
Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!!
</sarcasm>
In case you didn't notice, the FSF is not opposed to commercial code,
but closed code.
···
On Saturday 01 October 2005 20:51, Gregory Brown wrote:
(Note, I'm currently working on commercial software. Smile a little. It's
ok.)
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org
The reference was to Stallman, not the FSF. As near as I can tell, Stallman is opposed to everything. 
(The above is a joke. Please laugh. I really wasn't trying to start a fight.)
James Edward Gray II
···
On Oct 2, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
Kevin Brown <blargity@gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday 01 October 2005 20:51, Gregory Brown wrote:
My role as a free software advocate is to
whine about the fact that these licenses do not offer a strong
copyleft.
[*snip*]I work on commercial code... [*snip*]
Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!!
</sarcasm>In case you didn't notice, the FSF is not opposed to commercial code,
but closed code.
I didn't notice, as it's quite hard to sell software when one person can buy
it and then give it away to everyone else for free with no legal
consequences.
[*snip*]
···
On Sunday 02 October 2005 10:56, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
Kevin Brown <blargity@gmail.com> writes:
> On Saturday 01 October 2005 20:51, Gregory Brown wrote:
>> My role as a free software advocate is to
>> whine about the fact that these licenses do not offer a strong
>> copyleft.
>> [*snip*]
>>
>> I work on commercial code... [*snip*]
>
> Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!!
> </sarcasm>In case you didn't notice, the FSF is not opposed to commercial code,
but closed code.
Kevin Brown <blargity@gmail.com> writes:
>> I work on commercial code... [*snip*]
>
> Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!!
> </sarcasm>In case you didn't notice, the FSF is not opposed to commercial code,
but closed code.I didn't notice, as it's quite hard to sell software when one person can buy
it and then give it away to everyone else for free with no legal
consequences.
FYI, Stallman made some money to get the FSF started by distributing
Emacs on tape.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for
development. Don't waste it!
It may be even possible (but the FSF surely doesn't encourage to) to
sell commercial licenses, cf. MySQL (though they are not the best
example).
I get the intent of the joke, but I think it is important to clarify
this issue.
···
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org
James Edward Gray II wrote:
···
On Oct 2, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> Kevin Brown <blargity@gmail.com> writes:
>> Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!!
>> </sarcasm>
>>
>
> In case you didn't notice, the FSF is not opposed to commercial code,
> but closed code.The reference was to Stallman, not the FSF. As near as I can tell,
Stallman is opposed to everything.
Richard Stallman does not pretend to be anything less than an idealist.
However, the first thing I got through his parser without some sort of
conflicts was amazingly my company proposal. For the easily
entertained, this proposal can be read at the link below.
Kevin Brown <blargity@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> I work on commercial code... [*snip*]
>> >
>> > Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!!
>> > </sarcasm>
>>
>> In case you didn't notice, the FSF is not opposed to commercial code,
>> but closed code.
>
> I didn't notice, as it's quite hard to sell software when one person can
> buy it and then give it away to everyone else for free with no legal
> consequences.FYI, Stallman made some money to get the FSF started by distributing
Emacs on tape.Selling Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
I was already 100% aware of this, and the fact that they still have no problem
selling the _distribution_ of free software. My point is that I see this as
a problem, for instance in my current system.
I'm not sure how much it will/won't sell. That's not my problem. The problem
comes that I feel a much higher need to produce high quality software than to
ensure it meets a license guideline. Thus, if I provide a way to distribute
it, it will be a good way. While technically Transgaming meets GPL, it does
so by giving you the code in an unuseful fashion.
This system will be written in Ruby. Therefore they get the code when I
distribute anyway. The only additional license requirement above the GPL is
that when a copy goes between companies (this will not be of interest to
individuals), that my company gets a _reasonable_ charge. I see this as
being more valuable to the common good than what transgaming is doing,
because if I were to distribute the source of my app, my company would
require me to make it more adventageous for the customer to buy.
> Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for
> development. Don't waste it!It may be even possible (but the FSF surely doesn't encourage to) to
sell commercial licenses, cf. MySQL (though they are not the best
example).
This is why I'm responding. It's the problem I have with the FSF and the
like. It's 100% _POSSIBLE_. It's easy to do. Dual licensing even fits in
the GPL. Whether that fits into the piles of ethics of above groups is the
only question, but there was never a problem with the possibility of doing
so. So it annoys me to no end when these groups refer to the possibility of
a concept when they really mean "should we say this an ok usage of free
software?" Which is ironic as it implies that _free_ software should have
controls to FORCE it to STAY FREE OR ELSE YOU EVIL CAPITALIST PIG, which is
in many ways as unfree as the very software I'm writing. Once they've bought
my product, they have the source, and can modify/extend/learn to their
heart's content. If they sell something off of it, or re-distribute, we
believe we deserve a cut.
I get the intent of the joke, but I think it is important to clarify
this issue.
As do I. 
I think DRM, Microsoft style licensing, and the like are very
very dumb. We really are on the same team here, just that I feel people
should be able to charge for ANY distribution of the software, and
FSF/whoever feels only the first distribution of the software should be
chargable. How this makes software free or not, I'm not really sure.
Stallman likes to talk about a gas tax being better than toll booths. I
agree. All we want is a gas tax. I'm not going to make people call and
activate their product/enter serial numbers/whatever, nor am I going to
obfuscate the source.
···
On Sunday 02 October 2005 12:45, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
Kevin Brown <blargity@gmail.com> writes:
FYI, Stallman made some money to get the FSF started by distributing
Emacs on tape.Selling Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
I was already 100% aware of this, and the fact that they still have no problem
selling the _distribution_ of free software. My point is that I see this as
a problem, for instance in my current system.I'm not sure how much it will/won't sell. That's not my problem. The problem
comes that I feel a much higher need to produce high quality software than to
ensure it meets a license guideline. Thus, if I provide a way to distribute
it, it will be a good way. While technically Transgaming meets GPL, it does
so by giving you the code in an unuseful fashion.
I'm not familiar with Transgaming... do you mean that only CVS is
accessible but "proper" releases are not?
This system will be written in Ruby. Therefore they get the code when I
distribute anyway. The only additional license requirement above the GPL is
that when a copy goes between companies (this will not be of interest to
individuals), that my company gets a _reasonable_ charge. I see this as
being more valuable to the common good than what transgaming is doing,
because if I were to distribute the source of my app, my company would
require me to make it more adventageous for the customer to buy.
This clause makes your system non-free, both to the GPL and the DFSG.
Imagine I'd like to extend your program, but you don't accept my
patches for reasons whatsoever. I can redistribute my extended
program, but I/my users need to pay *you* for every distribution?
Sorry, but this doesn't fit my mental model of free software. It more
sounds like dictatorship of the initial author. Remember that free
software also means you decline some of your rights for the good of
everyone.
It may be even possible (but the FSF surely doesn't encourage to) to
sell commercial licenses, cf. MySQL (though they are not the best
example).This is why I'm responding. It's the problem I have with the FSF and the
like. It's 100% _POSSIBLE_. It's easy to do. Dual licensing even fits in
the GPL. Whether that fits into the piles of ethics of above groups is the
only question, but there was never a problem with the possibility of doing
so. So it annoys me to no end when these groups refer to the possibility of
a concept when they really mean "should we say this an ok usage of free
software?"
But see, there is no other way. It's like the Pope saying there is
the possibility of using condoms, in case you really don't want
children.
Which is ironic as it implies that _free_ software should have
controls to FORCE it to STAY FREE
Therefore the "viral" clause.
OR ELSE YOU EVIL CAPITALIST PIG,
Except "capitalist" is inappropriate here, for reasons mentioned in an
earlier post.
which is in many ways as unfree as the very software I'm writing.
If you think this is too "unfree", you are welcome to use a BSD-like
license for your system. (But please don't let us go into *that*
discussion.)
Once they've bought my product, they have the source, and can
modify/extend/learn to their heart's content. If they sell
something off of it, or re-distribute, we believe we deserve a cut.
These are fundamental rights they'd even have if you were Microsoft
and sold them licenses of your software under their known EULAs.
This is not what free software is about. You drop Freedom #2 and #3:
# The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
# The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).
And it goes on:
Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or
without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for
distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things
means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for
permission.
These points are very important for free software, the concept doesn't
work with your suggested changes.
I get the intent of the joke, but I think it is important to clarify
this issue.As do I.
very dumb. We really are on the same team here,
Yes, we are. And please excuse if this post sounds zealoty, but I
need to make a point.
just that I feel people should be able to charge for ANY
distribution of the software, and FSF/whoever feels only the first
distribution of the software should be chargable. How this makes
software free or not, I'm not really sure.
As mentioned, you take away half of the freedoms the GPL grants! It
sure makes a difference.
Stallman likes to talk about a gas tax being better than toll
booths. I agree. All we want is a gas tax.
I didn't hear that comparision yet. And I'm sure the Germans would
disagree
I'm not going to make people call and activate their product/enter
serial numbers/whatever, nor am I going to obfuscate the source.
Thank you. Even if your system won't be free software, the users will
be thankful for this.
[Please reply privately if you think it's getting off-topic.]
···
On Sunday 02 October 2005 12:45, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org
Kevin Brown wrote:
This is why I'm responding. It's the problem I have with the FSF and the
like. It's 100% _POSSIBLE_. It's easy to do. Dual licensing even fits in
the GPL. Whether that fits into the piles of ethics of above groups is the
only question, but there was never a problem with the possibility of doing
so. So it annoys me to no end when these groups refer to the possibility of
a concept when they really mean "should we say this an ok usage of free
software?" Which is ironic as it implies that _free_ software should have
controls to FORCE it to STAY FREE OR ELSE YOU EVIL CAPITALIST PIG, which is
in many ways as unfree as the very software I'm writing.
Permitting software to be commercial is part of the definition of free
software. Non-commercial licenses are NOT considered free software by
the FSF. In fact, to be GPL compatible, a license must explicitly
allow for commercial sale.
Once they've bought
my product, they have the source, and can modify/extend/learn to their
heart's content. If they sell something off of it, or re-distribute, we
believe we deserve a cut.
How far down the chain do you think this works? Do you think that an
author should pay for every book written in word? The ethics of this
boil down to software licensing, which by definition makes a piece of
software non free.
Whether or not this is good economics I will not flame on about.
As a side note, the idea behind commercial free software is that your
money should come from a service you provide that requires your time or
resources, such as improvements to code, convenient packaging,
documentation, etc, and not to the imaginary costs of replication,
which simply do not exist. Of course, you're free to charge whatever
people are willing to pay for your software, but there is no reason
that you should have a cut of their creations, whether or not they've
been inspired by you, because it is there extra effort that yields the
money. If this type of collaboration does not appeal to you, why even
bother using free software?
Of course, if you DO make your software free you can't demand a cut of
their money, but you can always integrate the improvements they've made
back into your work, which is a net benifit that probably outweighs
that of royalties.
The nature of copyleft is certainly subjective. I support it fully,
many in the ruby community do not. This is why you're free to use a
non copylefted free software license that is GPL compatible and keep
everyone happy.
<insult>
Then again, it seems like you're more interested in money than people
anyway, in which case, perhaps you might charge every time someone
types a keystroke into your program, considering that it IS interfacing
with your program, after all.
</insult>
Kevin Brown wrote:
This is why I'm responding. It's the problem I have with the FSF and the
like. It's 100% _POSSIBLE_. It's easy to do. Dual licensing even fits in
the GPL. Whether that fits into the piles of ethics of above groups is the
only question, but there was never a problem with the possibility of doing
so. So it annoys me to no end when these groups refer to the possibility of
a concept when they really mean "should we say this an ok usage of free
software?" Which is ironic as it implies that _free_ software should have
controls to FORCE it to STAY FREE OR ELSE YOU EVIL CAPITALIST PIG, which is
in many ways as unfree as the very software I'm writing.Permitting software to be commercial is part of the definition of free
software. Non-commercial licenses are NOT considered free software by
the FSF. In fact, to be GPL compatible, a license must explicitly
allow for commercial sale.
Not necessarily, the license just must not explicitly forbid commercial sale to be GPL compatible.
<insult>
...
</insult>
Can't we all just get along?
···
On 2-Oct-05, at 6:01 PM, Greg Brown wrote:
--
Jeremy Tregunna
jtregunna@blurgle.ca
"If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in." --Dykstra
Kevin Brown wrote:
> This is why I'm responding. It's the problem I have with the FSF and the
> like. It's 100% _POSSIBLE_. It's easy to do. Dual licensing even fits in
> the GPL. Whether that fits into the piles of ethics of above groups is
the
> only question, but there was never a problem with the possibility of
doing
> so. So it annoys me to no end when these groups refer to the possibility
of
> a concept when they really mean "should we say this an ok usage of free
> software?" Which is ironic as it implies that _free_ software should
have
> controls to FORCE it to STAY FREE OR ELSE YOU EVIL CAPITALIST PIG, which
is
> in many ways as unfree as the very software I'm writing.Permitting software to be commercial is part of the definition of free
software. Non-commercial licenses are NOT considered free software by
the FSF. In fact, to be GPL compatible, a license must explicitly
allow for commercial sale.> Once they've bought
> my product, they have the source, and can modify/extend/learn to their
> heart's content. If they sell something off of it, or re-distribute, we
> believe we deserve a cut.How far down the chain do you think this works? Do you think that an
author should pay for every book written in word? The ethics of this
boil down to software licensing, which by definition makes a piece of
software non free.
Whether or not this is good economics I will not flame on about.
As a side note, the idea behind commercial free software is that your
money should come from a service you provide that requires your time or
resources, such as improvements to code, convenient packaging,
documentation, etc, and not to the imaginary costs of replication,
which simply do not exist. Of course, you're free to charge whatever
people are willing to pay for your software, but there is no reason
that you should have a cut of their creations, whether or not they've
been inspired by you, because it is there extra effort that yields the
money.
It's the combination of the original work and modifications that make up the
total value proposition. A derivitive work may indeed add value, but part of
the overall value is in the original software.
<insult>
Then again, it seems like you're more interested in money than people
anyway, in which case, perhaps you might charge every time someone
types a keystroke into your program, considering that it IS interfacing
with your program, after all.</insult>
That's not really fair. Even if you believe that software patents are bad
for people, as an intelligent person you have to realize that many do not
agree. Personally I think that the goals of the FSF if realized would harm a
lot more people then it would help, and I don't think you care less about
people because you see it differently. I might think you are wrong and
debate your logic and understanding of economics, but I wouldn't call you a
bad person just because you see it differently.
Chris
···
On 10/2/05, Greg Brown <greg7224@gmail.com> wrote:
Kevin Brown wrote:
[*snip*]
> Once they've bought
> my product, they have the source, and can modify/extend/learn to their
> heart's content. If they sell something off of it, or re-distribute, we
> believe we deserve a cut.How far down the chain do you think this works? Do you think that an
author should pay for every book written in word? The ethics of this
boil down to software licensing, which by definition makes a piece of
software non free.
Not far at all. They do not have to pay per use, machine, or anything of the
sort. Simply, once your company purchases the product, the company can use
it to fit their needs, unless that involves giving it to a different company.
Whether or not this is good economics I will not flame on about.
As a side note, the idea behind commercial free software is that your
money should come from a service you provide that requires your time or
resources, such as improvements to code, convenient packaging,
documentation, etc, and not to the imaginary costs of replication,
which simply do not exist. Of course, you're free to charge whatever
people are willing to pay for your software, but there is no reason
that you should have a cut of their creations, whether or not they've
been inspired by you, because it is there extra effort that yields the
money. If this type of collaboration does not appeal to you, why even
bother using free software?
It does appeal to me, and the other reason to use free software is that it's
(in my opinion) better. Period.
Of course, if you DO make your software free you can't demand a cut of
their money, but you can always integrate the improvements they've made
back into your work, which is a net benifit that probably outweighs
that of royalties.The nature of copyleft is certainly subjective. I support it fully,
many in the ruby community do not. This is why you're free to use a
non copylefted free software license that is GPL compatible and keep
everyone happy.<insult>
Then again, it seems like you're more interested in money than people
anyway, in which case, perhaps you might charge every time someone
types a keystroke into your program, considering that it IS interfacing
with your program, after all.
I never considered for a second anything that interferes with the way the
program works. Doing this would involve logging keystrokes, counting,
calling home, lots of extra junk.
Side note: The people who buy my software WILL charge their customers by the
keystroke, or more accurately by the record entered. They are data entry
houses.
···
On Sunday 02 October 2005 16:01, Greg Brown wrote:
</insult>
Jeremy Tregunna wrote:
Not necessarily, the license just must not explicitly forbid commercial
sale to be GPL compatible.
From Richard Stallman:
" The 'Ruby license' does not give permission to sell copies.
So it is not a free software license.
Only the fact that Ruby is also available under the GPL
makes Ruby free software "
In order to be GPL compatible or to be free software (according to the
FSF, at least ), you must explicitly protect all of the essential
freedoms of free software.
For the specifics:
Can't we all just get along?
Sorry... couldn't help being a bit facetious there.
But you're right, it was unnecessary.
snacktime wrote:
It's the combination of the original work and modifications that make up the
total value proposition. A derivitive work may indeed add value, but part of
the overall value is in the original software.
This is true, but it is assumed that that part had already been paid
for once, and that people buying the derivative work are paying for
those enhancements, not the original software. Afterall, if those
enhancements weren't worth the money, individuals would buy the
original software.
The argument then becomes what if this third party sells the product
for cheaper than the original company or distributes it for free?
This is a very real issue, and my best response is that companies
should be in the position to make money off of service and innovation,
not the notion of 'intellectual property'. If they are already
centered around such a business model, the loss of royalties will be
minimal compared to the gain of others innovation and contribution. If
the business model is IP centric, then without a doubt, they will lose
out. This is the risk / payoff scenario a company must evaluate before
choosing to make their software free.
That's not really fair. Even if you believe that software patents are bad
for people, as an intelligent person you have to realize that many do not
agree. Personally I think that the goals of the FSF if realized would harm a
lot more people then it would help, and I don't think you care less about
people because you see it differently. I might think you are wrong and
debate your logic and understanding of economics, but I wouldn't call you a
bad person just because you see it differently.
You're right. My insult was uncalled for and I apologize to the OP and
to others for having said it, though it was more of a joke than
anything.
Kevin Brown wrote:
> Kevin Brown wrote:
[*snip*]
> > Once they've bought
> > my product, they have the source, and can modify/extend/learn to their
> > heart's content. If they sell something off of it, or re-distribute, we
> > believe we deserve a cut.
>
> How far down the chain do you think this works? Do you think that an
> author should pay for every book written in word? The ethics of this
> boil down to software licensing, which by definition makes a piece of
> software non free.Not far at all. They do not have to pay per use, machine, or anything of the
sort. Simply, once your company purchases the product, the company can use
it to fit their needs, unless that involves giving it to a different company.
That's still technically not free software. I think this may fit under
the Open Source definition though. Which of course, is better than
proprietary software and I've worked (and am working) on projects that
are under this kind of model. I still think that to go free where
possible is best, but any openness is better than none.
I never considered for a second anything that interferes with the way the
program works. Doing this would involve logging keystrokes, counting,
calling home, lots of extra junk.
Good. Sorry about that ridiculous accusation.
Side note: The people who buy my software WILL charge their customers by the
keystroke, or more accurately by the record entered. They are data entry
houses.
Yeah, I know how they roll, I'm basically in the same boat
···
On Sunday 02 October 2005 16:01, Greg Brown wrote:
Jeremy Tregunna wrote:
Not necessarily, the license just must not explicitly forbid commercial
sale to be GPL compatible.From Richard Stallman:
" The 'Ruby license' does not give permission to sell copies.
So it is not a free software license.
I was talking about the GPL not the Ruby License.
Only the fact that Ruby is also available under the GPL
makes Ruby free software "In order to be GPL compatible or to be free software (according to the
FSF, at least ), you must explicitly protect all of the essential
freedoms of free software.
No, in order to be GPL compatible (from a legal standpoint) you need only to implicitly permit everything the GPL would, and not explicitly add restrictions. What the FSF wants and what it is entitled to are two entirely different things. I need not explicitly permit everything the GPL does to be GPL compatible (c.f. 3 clause BSD License, etc).
For the specifics:
What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
I'm well informed with the FSF's idiology; I can agree in points, but not in its entirety; and I will not argue idiology with you or anyone else on this list.
···
On 2-Oct-05, at 6:51 PM, Greg Brown wrote:
--
Jeremy Tregunna
jtregunna@blurgle.ca
"If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in." --Dykstra