I was just looking up something on the OSI website when I saw that the Ruby license isn't listed there. Because I was wondering about that I had a look at the license:
You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL (see COPYING.txt file), or the conditions below
On 7/11/07, cypher...@gmail.com <cypher...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everybody !
> I was just looking up something on the OSI website when I saw that the > Ruby license isn't listed there. Because I was wondering about that I > had a look at the license:
> You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL > (see COPYING.txt file), or the conditions below
The only reason it's not listed on the OSI site is (AFAIK) no one has sought their official approval.
However, a while ago I talked with the FSF to get their approval, and I'm not sure if others did as well, but at any rate, it is listed as a GPL compatible Free Software license due to the explicit dual licensing with the GPL.
cypher...@gmail.com wrote: > You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL > (see COPYING.txt file), or the conditions below
> Q: Is Ruby know under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 ?
Ruby does not specify the GPL version therefore applies
"…If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation…"
Alternative license has already been mentioned by Gregory Brown.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Gregory Brown wrote: > On 7/11/07, cypher...@gmail.com <cypher...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello everybody !
>> I was just looking up something on the OSI website when I saw that the >> Ruby license isn't listed there. Because I was wondering about that I >> had a look at the license:
>> You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL >> (see COPYING.txt file), or the conditions below
> The only reason it's not listed on the OSI site is (AFAIK) no one has > sought their official approval.
> However, a while ago I talked with the FSF to get their approval, and > I'm not sure if others did as well, but at any rate, it is listed as a > GPL compatible Free Software license due to the explicit dual > licensing with the GPL.
> For this reason, I *assume* that means that it meets the OSI > definition as well, but I don't much pay attention to them. ;)
> But in short, Ruby is Free and Open Source software...
It meets the DFSG too, which are pretty strict, otherwise it wouldn't be in Debian proper. *t
-- ----------------------------------------------------------- Tomas Pospisek http://sourcepole.com - Linux & Open Source Solutions -----------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 07:27:23AM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote: > On 7/11/07, cypher...@gmail.com <cypher...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Hello everybody !
> >I was just looking up something on the OSI website when I saw that the > >Ruby license isn't listed there. Because I was wondering about that I > >had a look at the license:
> >You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL > >(see COPYING.txt file), or the conditions below
> The only reason it's not listed on the OSI site is (AFAIK) no one has > sought their official approval.
There are costs associated with OSI approval. It is, thus, probably in part the matter of money that has prevented the Ruby license from being listed there.
-- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Kent Beck: "I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java. I just didn't know it would be called Ruby."
On 7/11/07, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt <j...@gmx.de> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1
> Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote: > >> Q: Is Ruby know under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 ?
> > Ruby does not specify the GPL version therefore applies
> Hmm, seems to depend on the Ruby version. > Recent Ruby versions state GPL 2, License on ruby-talk doesn't.
Right, I brought this up maybe a year ago and Matz decided to lock it to GPLv2 (which is a smart move, as the 'or any later version' clause is viral)
He said he was considering moving to GPL3 when it became finalized. I've not asked what he thinks, and honestly haven't decided what I think about GPL 3 :)
