What restrictions does the Ruby license place on the construction and sale
of commercial products?
Is there a way to “compile” the developed Ruby code in a product so that the
source code isn’t accessible to the end user?
Thanks.
What restrictions does the Ruby license place on the construction and sale
of commercial products?
None really. It is an error to think that open source licenses prohibit
commercial products.
Be it as it may, I suppose that you are referring to the ability to
conceal the source code. Ruby comes with a dual license. One is the GPL
and the other is an MIT-style license which (as I understand it) allows
you to distribute a modified version of Ruby and keep the changes secret.
I can’t imagine why you’d want to do that. So I suppose that what you
really want is to write programs in Ruby and keep the source secret. In
that case, you are (as far as I know) asking the wrong question. Ruby’s
license applies only to Ruby’s source itself. It says absolutely nothing
about the Ruby programs you write. There are no restrictions on that
front whatsoever.
Is there a way to “compile” the developed Ruby code in a product so that the
source code isn’t accessible to the end user?
If I may ask, why would you want to keep the user from the source? I’m
curious.
The only way that (I am currently aware) of doing this is to use the
Exerb package (it’s in RAA, I don’t have the exact page). Exerb will turn
your Ruby code into a Windows executable. Exerb is going to make a very
large executable.
I think that eventually Ruby will support the Parrot virtual machine. So
there might be a “compiler” then.
I hope this helps,
What restrictions does the Ruby license place on the construction
and sale of commercial products?
None. Individual libraries may have more restrictions than others.
Is there a way to “compile” the developed Ruby code in a product
so that the source code isn’t accessible to the end user?
No, not really. Even exerb (for Windows) leaves the code readable in
the Windows binary (unless zlib is used, but I’ve never had luck
with that at all).
-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2003.04.11 at 12:55:08
···
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 00:28:55 +0900, Steve Adams wrote:
Parts of the license are a bit vague about if commercial apps can be
generated with the tools. This relates to the parts that weren’t
written by Matz. My concern is, are there restriction on the
distribution of the standard Ruby package (probably using EXERB)
within commercial products. Hadn’t planned on any changes to
Ruby itself.
Protection of the source code for the product being developed is
a fairly standard thing for non-open source products.
“Daniel Carrera” dcarrera@math.umd.edu wrote in message
news:20030411164542.GA1699@math.umd.edu…
What restrictions does the Ruby license place on the construction and
sale
of commercial products?None really. It is an error to think that open source licenses prohibit
commercial products.Be it as it may, I suppose that you are referring to the ability to
conceal the source code. Ruby comes with a dual license. One is the GPL
and the other is an MIT-style license which (as I understand it) allows
you to distribute a modified version of Ruby and keep the changes secret.I can’t imagine why you’d want to do that. So I suppose that what you
really want is to write programs in Ruby and keep the source secret. In
that case, you are (as far as I know) asking the wrong question. Ruby’s
license applies only to Ruby’s source itself. It says absolutely nothing
about the Ruby programs you write. There are no restrictions on that
front whatsoever.Is there a way to “compile” the developed Ruby code in a product so that
the
···
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 12:28:55AM +0900, Steve Adams wrote:
source code isn’t accessible to the end user?
If I may ask, why would you want to keep the user from the source? I’m
curious.The only way that (I am currently aware) of doing this is to use the
Exerb package (it’s in RAA, I don’t have the exact page). Exerb will turn
your Ruby code into a Windows executable. Exerb is going to make a very
large executable.I think that eventually Ruby will support the Parrot virtual machine. So
there might be a “compiler” then.I hope this helps,
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept.
University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137
Austin Ziegler wrote:
What restrictions does the Ruby license place on the construction
and sale of commercial products?None. Individual libraries may have more restrictions than others.
Is there a way to “compile” the developed Ruby code in a product
so that the source code isn’t accessible to the end user?
Someone needs to port Acme::Bleach 
Regards,
Dan
···
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 00:28:55 +0900, Steve Adams wrote:
–
a = [74, 117, 115, 116, 32, 65, 110, 111, 116, 104, 101, 114, 32, 82]
a.push(117,98, 121, 32, 72, 97, 99, 107, 101, 114)
puts a.pack(“C*”)
It is an error to think that open source licenses prohibit
commercial products.
[…]
If I may ask, why would you want to keep the user from the source? I’m
curious.
Try making a living as a game developer…
Try making a living as an independent game developer…
It isn’t a matter of wanting to keep the source from the user.
It is simply “an error” to think that many people pay for games
when they can download an unprotected copy for free. (Sad, but
very, very, very, very, . . . .true in my exp.)
I personally embrace id Software’s enlightened compromise: release
a protected, closed-source version of the game. Work on next game
for a few years. Release open source final version of previous
game.
Regards,
Bill
···
From: “Daniel Carrera” dcarrera@math.umd.edu
Protection of the source code for the product being developed is
a fairly standard thing for non-open source products.
True enough, but the question posed was “why do YOU want to do that?”
(emphasis mine). Is the answer, “because everyone else does”? that’s a fair
answer mind you.
Parts of the license are a bit vague about if commercial apps can
be
generated with the tools. This relates to the parts that weren’t
written by Matz. My concern is, are there restriction on the
distribution of the standard Ruby package (probably using EXERB)
within commercial products. Hadn’t planned on any changes to
Ruby itself.
No. That’s still covered under the Ruby licence, which allows for an
Artistic-style (though very loose) licence or GPL.
-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2003.04.11 at 16:09:00
···
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 02:09:25 +0900, Steve Adams wrote:
Hi,
Parts of the license are a bit vague about if commercial apps can be
generated with the tools. This relates to the parts that weren’t
written by Matz. My concern is, are there restriction on the
distribution of the standard Ruby package (probably using EXERB)
within commercial products. Hadn’t planned on any changes to
Ruby itself.
If you’re programs are written in Ruby, I have no right nor control
over them. If you’re programs embed Ruby in them (or using Exerb),
you have to either
-
ship unmodified Ruby source with your program
-
mention how to get the Ruby source in the documentation of your
programmatz.
···
In message “Re: Two questions” on 03/04/12, “Steve Adams” adamss@ascinet.com writes:
Because it’s the requirement that I’ve been given.
“Mike Campbell” michael_s_campbell@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:NFBBKBEMGLGCIPPFGHOLIEIMDHAA.michael_s_campbell@yahoo.com…
Protection of the source code for the product being developed is
a fairly standard thing for non-open source products.True enough, but the question posed was “why do YOU want to do that?”
(emphasis mine). Is the answer, “because everyone else does”? that’s a
fair
···
answer mind you.
“Steve Adams” adamss@ascinet.com writes:
Because it’s the requirement that I’ve been given.
Push back, then. This question comes up all the time in clpm, and the
standard answer there is, “You can’t do what you want to do.” I don’t
see why Ruby is any different. At some point, you have to have plain
text to feed into a Ruby interpreter, at which point all the
obsfucating you’ve done is now completely useless.
If you’re afraid people will steal your code, then license it
appropriately, and set severe penalties in your contract for copying.
And don’t give it to people who will steal it-- if you can’t trust the
people you do business with, it’s probably time to find new clients,
or get in a new business.
-=Eric
···
–
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
– Blair Houghton.
The standard answer is “Use something else other than Ruby.”. My hope
had been that it would have supported some form of distribution other than
pure source form. It’s been great for prototyping, but at this point I’ll
have to
use something else for the actual product.
“Eric Schwartz” emschwar@pobox.com wrote in message
news:eto7ka0rjbw.fsf@wormtongue.emschwar…
···
“Steve Adams” adamss@ascinet.com writes:
Because it’s the requirement that I’ve been given.
Push back, then. This question comes up all the time in clpm, and the
standard answer there is, “You can’t do what you want to do.” I don’t
see why Ruby is any different. At some point, you have to have plain
text to feed into a Ruby interpreter, at which point all the
obsfucating you’ve done is now completely useless.If you’re afraid people will steal your code, then license it
appropriately, and set severe penalties in your contract for copying.
And don’t give it to people who will steal it-- if you can’t trust the
people you do business with, it’s probably time to find new clients,
or get in a new business.-=Eric
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
– Blair Houghton.
“Steve Adams” adamss@ascinet.com writes:
The standard answer is “Use something else other than Ruby.”. My hope
had been that it would have supported some form of distribution other than
pure source form. It’s been great for prototyping, but at this point I’ll
have to
use something else for the actual product.
Feel free to point out that disassemblers are easy to come by, and
work fairly well with C++ and Java; you’re not really much more
‘secure’ using a compiled language than you are with Ruby. But
politics is politics. :-\
-=Eric
···
–
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
– Blair Houghton.
if they point you to java show them decafe and dj.
Seeing them working is impressive.
nobody mentioned bruby, you’ll have some kind of bytecode…
···
il Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:24:17 -0400, “Steve Adams” adamss@ascinet.com ha scritto::
The standard answer is “Use something else other than Ruby.”. My hope
had been that it would have supported some form of distribution other than
pure source form. It’s been great for prototyping, but at this point I’ll
have to
use something else for the actual product.