From: "NARUSE, Yui" Date: 2010-09-01T03:13:56+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:31978] Re: Change Ruby's License to BSDL + Ruby's dual license (2010/09/01 2:36), Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 01/09/10 at 01:30 +0900, NARUSE, Yui wrote: >> Ruby's License will change to BSDL + Ruby's dual license >> >> == Background >> >> Ruby's License, which is used as the license of Ruby and other related software, >> says it is dual license: GPLv2 or Ruby's in a narrow sense. >> >> But it has following problems: >> * it is not compatible with GPLv3 >> * a modest person can't port Ruby's code into BSDL >> * a greed person can port Ruby's code into public domain >> (use quotation clause) >> >> So copyleft spirit of Ruby's License is the barrier to BSDL, >> but can't effect to modified codes. >> >> == Change >> >> current: GPLv2 + Ruby's >> new: BSDL + Ruby's > > That's the 3-clause BSD license, not the 4-clause one, right? 2-clause. I added it in [ruby-core:31972], sorry for confusing. >> == Merit >> >> * you can use Ruby with GPLv3 software >> * you can port Ruby's code into BSDL code >> >> == Demerit >> >> nothing: because people can everything with change the name or quotation clause. > > May I ask why you did not completely drop the Ruby licence, and only use > BSD ? Since the BSD is the more permissive of the two, everybody not > following the Ruby license can instead follow the BSD license anyway. > And it would make the whole licensing situation much simpler. Ruby's License permits users to include Ruby's code into their code without any copyright notice of Ruby. So "the BSD is the more permissive of the two" is wrong. >> It was discussed in [ruby-dev:39167], [ruby-core:25272] and so on. >> Initial decision was made on RubyKaigi 2010 by Matz. >> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/wiki/ruby/DevelopersMeeting20100827 > > On a side note, this document says that Debian squeeze uses 1.9.1. That > is not true, we transitioned to 1.9.2 shortly before the 1.9.2 release, > though the packages are still named *ruby1.9.1 because we version them > with the ruby compatibility version, not the ruby version itself. (it > would be too complex to have a transition to change the naming now, as > it would require modifying all ruby library packages.) I added your comment, thanks. -- NARUSE, Yui