Fortunately, there are options other than Stallman's twisting of the
concept "free."
-austin
···
On 10/2/05, Greg Brown <greg7224@gmail.com> wrote:
" 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.
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca
Hi,
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 "
Non-GPL part of the 'Ruby license' does not contain any terms to
prohibit selling copies. Yet it still does contain some terms that
are not compatible with GPL, so that applying it without GPL makes
Ruby non-free software.
Note that the Ruby license is always dual with GPL. You can choose
terms you use, but still you have to allow others to choose their own
terms including GPL, so that applying the part of it is not an option
for Ruby.
matz.
···
In message "Re: Ruby licence..." on Mon, 3 Oct 2005 07:51:46 +0900, "Greg Brown" <greg7224@gmail.com> writes:
Jeremy Tregunna wrote:
[*snip*]
> Can't we all just get along?
Sorry... couldn't help being a bit facetious there.
But you're right, it was unnecessary.
Well, and simply inaccurate...
···
On Sunday 02 October 2005 16:51, Greg Brown wrote:
Jeremy Tregunna wrote:
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.
Probably a great idea. The FSF issue will always be a hot spot for
most people.
Nevertheless, I think the OP's question has certainly been answered.
If you bundle Ruby, you technically don't even need to be GPL
compatible, let alone under the GPL yourself. However, the best
protection would be to be GPL compatible because the Ruby License is
incredibly weak standing alone.
Of course, there are plenty of licenses that are GPL compatible, and
they vary in ideology and flavor. So it's best to pick the one you
like best.
If you bundle Ruby under the GPL and you use the GPL yourself, you've
effectively copylefted your work. If that's what you're going for,
awesome!
If not, you might want to choose a more permissive license. Many
non-copylefted free software licenses exist.
The most freedom is a disjunctive license which lets a user choose but
can lead to confusion, alas the source of this whole thread 
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:
Hi,
>>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 "
Non-GPL part of the 'Ruby license' does not contain any terms to
prohibit selling copies. Yet it still does contain some terms that
are not compatible with GPL, so that applying it without GPL makes
Ruby non-free software.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
The license of Ruby
This is a Free Software license, compatible with the GPL via an
explicit dual-licensing clause.
Note that the Ruby license is always dual with GPL. You can choose
terms you use, but still you have to allow others to choose their own
terms including GPL, so that applying the part of it is not an option
for Ruby.
I have to say you that I really enjoy the Ruby license. It was a very
good choice.
···
In message "Re: Ruby licence..." > on Mon, 3 Oct 2005 07:51:46 +0900, "Greg Brown" <greg7224@gmail.com> writes:
matz.
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org