All these different licenses makes me confused. As I been understand it
you may choose a GPL license or Ruby's own license. The GPL license is
not compatible with, for example, the MTT license which Rail is released
with, and I do not want to use the GPL license for my project either.
My questions is:
1. Why has Ruby its own license and are not licensed under something
like the Apache license?
2. Why is Ruby not dual license with the Apache license, rather then the
GPL? which I understand is more closer to the ruby license and not as
restrictive as the GPL license?
It's the same reason that we have BSD and MIT licenses. At the heart
of them, they are almost the same (nobody kill me for generalizing
but they feel different, have a different flavor to them.
It's a matter more of tastes than anything else. Is it to you're
liking that your name is always attached, that people can easily use
it along side commercial or non commercial code, do you want to make
it easy or difficult to be bundled?
Unless you're really sure of the future of your project, it doesn't
really matter. Pretty much all of the "open source" licenses are
compatible at some level. You can move a project from one license to
another, even to a proprietary one. Which license depends on how hard
it is, but I think it's always possible.
This page may help you:
--Kyle
···
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:46 AM, Johan Gustav <johan.postbox@gmail.com> wrote:
1. Why has Ruby its own license and are not licensed under something
like the Apache license?
1. Why has Ruby its own license and are not licensed under something
like the Apache license?
Just because Ruby is older than Apache.
2. Why is Ruby not dual license with the Apache license, rather then the
GPL? which I understand is more closer to the ruby license and not as
restrictive as the GPL license?
It needs GPL dual to accomplish GPL compatibility. I don't want to
see any problem linking with GPL libraries, e.g. readline.
matz.
···
In message "Re: Why ruby license?" on Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:46:07 +0900, Johan Gustav <johan.postbox@gmail.com> writes:
>Why is Ruby not dual license with the Apache license, rather then the
>GPL? which I understand is more closer to the ruby license and not as
>restrictive as the GPL license?
It needs GPL dual to accomplish GPL compatibility. I don't want to
see any problem linking with GPL libraries, e.g. readline.
Thank you. This kind of licensing makes it a lot easier to justify GPL development at commercial software development companies.
