# Ruby licence **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [30 September 2005 17:31 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237 "2005-09-30T17:31:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Netspam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c4cdca/32.png) [@Netspam](https://rubytalk.org/u/Netspam)\ **Post date:** [30 September 2005 17:31 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/1 "2005-09-30T17:31:45Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Brian\_Mitchell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/49beb7/32.png) [@Brian\_Mitchell](https://rubytalk.org/u/Brian_Mitchell)\ **Post date:** [30 September 2005 17:41 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/2 "2005-09-30T17:41:40Z")
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](http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt) > **···** > > On 9/30/05, 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? ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Brown1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/258eb7/32.png) [@Greg\_Brown1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Greg_Brown1)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 02:51 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/3 "2005-10-02T02:51:47Z")
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](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 ---
**Author:** ![Kevin\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kevin\_Brown](https://rubytalk.org/u/Kevin_Brown)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 09:17 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/4 "2005-10-02T09:17:29Z")
\*GASP\* Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!! \ (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\*] ---
**Author:** ![Netspam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c4cdca/32.png) [@Netspam](https://rubytalk.org/u/Netspam)\ **Post date:** [3 October 2005 09:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/5 "2005-10-03T09:56:46Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Neukirche1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Christian\_Neukirche1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Christian_Neukirche1)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 16:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/6 "2005-10-02T16:56:37Z")
Kevin Brown \ 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!!! > \ 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 \ [http://chneukirchen.org](http://chneukirchen.org) ---
**Author:** ![James\_Edward\_Gray\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ea5d25/32.png) [@James\_Edward\_Gray\_II](https://rubytalk.org/u/James_Edward_Gray_II)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 17:01 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/7 "2005-10-02T17:01:59Z")
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 \ 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!!! > > > \ > > > > In case you didn't notice, the FSF is not opposed to commercial code, > > but closed code. ---
**Author:** ![Kevin\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kevin\_Brown](https://rubytalk.org/u/Kevin_Brown)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 17:03 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/8 "2005-10-02T17:03:09Z")
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 \ 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!!! > > \> \ > > > > In case you didn't notice, the FSF is not opposed to commercial code, > > but closed code. ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Neukirche1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Christian\_Neukirche1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Christian_Neukirche1)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 18:45 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/9 "2005-10-02T18:45:45Z")
Kevin Brown \ writes: > > \>\> I work on commercial code... [\*snip\*] > > \> > > \> Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!! > > \> \ > > > > 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](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 \ [http://chneukirchen.org](http://chneukirchen.org) ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e56c9b/32.png) [@Greg\_Brown](https://rubytalk.org/u/Greg_Brown)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 22:36 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/10 "2005-10-02T22:36:47Z")
James Edward Gray II wrote: > **···** > > > On Oct 2, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Christian Neukirchen wrote: > > > > \> Kevin Brown \ writes: > > \>\> Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!! > > \>\> \ > > \>\> > > \> > > \> 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. > > [http://www.stonecode.org/blog/?p=6](http://www.stonecode.org/blog/?p=6) ---
**Author:** ![Kevin\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kevin\_Brown](https://rubytalk.org/u/Kevin_Brown)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 19:16 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/11 "2005-10-02T19:16:27Z")
> Kevin Brown \ writes: > \>\> \>\> I work on commercial code... [\*snip\*] > \>\> \> > \>\> \> Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!! > \>\> \> \ > \>\> > \>\> 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](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html) 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: ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Neukirche1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Christian\_Neukirche1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Christian_Neukirche1)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 20:01 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/12 "2005-10-02T20:01:42Z")
Kevin Brown \ writes: > > FYI, Stallman made some money to get the FSF started by distributing > > Emacs on tape. > > > > [Selling Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html) > > 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: > **[What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)** > > Since 1983, developing the free Unix style operating system GNU, so that computer users can have the freedom to share and improve the software they use. > # 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. 🙂 I think DRM, Microsoft style licensing, and the like are very > 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 \ [http://chneukirchen.org](http://chneukirchen.org) ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e56c9b/32.png) [@Greg\_Brown](https://rubytalk.org/u/Greg_Brown)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 22:01 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/13 "2005-10-02T22:01:47Z")
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. \ 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. \ ---
**Author:** ![Jeremy\_Tregunna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e99b99/32.png) [@Jeremy\_Tregunna](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jeremy_Tregunna)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 22:38 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/14 "2005-10-02T22:38:32Z")
> 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. > \ > ... > \ 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 ---
**Author:** ![snacktime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7feea3/32.png) [@snacktime](https://rubytalk.org/u/snacktime)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 23:08 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/15 "2005-10-02T23:08:27Z")
> 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. > \ > > 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. > > \ 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 \ wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Kevin\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kevin\_Brown](https://rubytalk.org/u/Kevin_Brown)\ **Post date:** [3 October 2005 02:06 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/16 "2005-10-03T02:06:25Z")
> 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. > > \ > > 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: > > > \ ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e56c9b/32.png) [@Greg\_Brown](https://rubytalk.org/u/Greg_Brown)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 22:51 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/17 "2005-10-02T22:51:46Z")
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: > **[What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)** > > Since 1983, developing the free Unix style operating system GNU, so that computer users can have the freedom to share and improve the software they use. > Can't we all just get along? Sorry... couldn't help being a bit facetious there. But you're right, it was unnecessary. ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Brown1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/258eb7/32.png) [@Greg\_Brown1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Greg_Brown1)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 23:16 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/18 "2005-10-02T23:16:46Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Brown1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/258eb7/32.png) [@Greg\_Brown1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Greg_Brown1)\ **Post date:** [3 October 2005 03:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/19 "2005-10-03T03:56:47Z")
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: ---
**Author:** ![Jeremy\_Tregunna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e99b99/32.png) [@Jeremy\_Tregunna](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jeremy_Tregunna)\ **Post date:** [2 October 2005 22:59 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237/20 "2005-10-02T22:59:24Z")
> 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](http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html) 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 [Next page](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-licence/21237.md?page=2)