Ruby licence...

[Guest]

I understand that the distribution of Ruby is under the GPL.
Would I be correct in assuming that any commercial product which
embedded the standard Ruby interpreter would also require be GPL if
shipped, or is there current (or planned) provision to only require
LGPL under those circumstances?

 

[Brian Mitchell]

I understand that the distribution of Ruby is under the GPL.
Would I be correct in assuming that any commercial product which
embedded the standard Ruby interpreter would also require be GPL if
shipped, or is there current (or planned) provision to only require
LGPL under those circumstances?

The Ruby license is *not* GPL. There is a complete copy of what it is
currently under available online [1]. It is referred to as the Ruby
License. It bares strong resemblance to the Perl license. This should
not inhibit commercial use to Ruby in most cases.

Note that some parts also contain other special licenses. See your
specific ruby version's source tarball for a LEGAL file which should
give you an overview. If you have any further questions please ask.

Brian.

[1] http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt

 

[Gregory Brown]

The Ruby License and the License of Ruby are two different things.

The Ruby License is the license which Matz wrote for Ruby. The license
of the ruby distribution itself is a disjunctive license which gives
the user a choice of distributing under either of the two licenses.

You are free to follow the terms of either license. For your own
applications, if you choose to follow the restrictions of the GPL, you
need to ensure you use a GPL compatible license, but it needn't
necessarily be the GPL. The various MIT / BSD style licenses are
mostly GPL compatible, as are many other license. A full list of GPL
compatible licenses according to the Free Software foundation can be
found here:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

If you are not planning on using GPLed libraries or other things under
the restrictions of the GPL, under the Ruby license you can basically
use whatever licensing you'd like, but bear in mind that the Free
Software Foundation does not consider the Ruby license on it's own as
free software, therefore you will prevent people from linking your code
with GPLed code if you use just the ruby license or some other non-free
license.

This is indeed quite similar to the License of Perl, which offers a
choice of the Artistic License or the GPL.

As a side note, the Ruby community seems to have a tradition towards
the BSD style licenses. My role as a free software advocate is to
whine about the fact that these licenses do not offer a strong
copyleft. However, it seems like such a thing is exactly what you'd
like to avoid, so these licenses might fit your needs well as well as
provide some freedom to your work.

The compromise that will make most Rubyists willing to use your
software regardless of their politics is to offer a disjunctive license
such as the License of Ruby (Ruby License / GPL) or any other mix and
match choice that allows the GPL as an option. However, I'm sure some
of the Gurus will say, just BSD the sucker!, and I will try not to make
my case for the FSF too strongly.

I work on commercial code under the License of Ruby, and have not run
into any issues with the scheme, if that's of any help.

Hope this helps.
-Greg

 

[Kevin Brown]

My role as a free software advocate is to
whine about the fact that these licenses do not offer a strong
copyleft.
[*snip*]

I work on commercial code... [*snip*]

*GASP*

Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!!

</sarcasm>

(Note, I'm currently working on commercial software. Smile a little. It's
ok.)

 

[James Edward Gray II]

My role as a free software advocate is to
whine about the fact that these licenses do not offer a strong
copyleft.
[*snip*]

I work on commercial code... [*snip*]

Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!!
</sarcasm>

In case you didn't notice, the FSF is not opposed to commercial code,
but closed code.

The reference was to Stallman, not the FSF. As near as I can tell,
Stallman is opposed to everything.

(The above is a joke. Please laugh. I really wasn't trying to start
a fight.)

James Edward Gray II

 

[Kevin Brown]

My role as a free software advocate is to
whine about the fact that these licenses do not offer a strong
copyleft.
[*snip*]

I work on commercial code... [*snip*]

Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!!
</sarcasm>

In case you didn't notice, the FSF is not opposed to commercial code,
but closed code.

I didn't notice, as it's quite hard to sell software when one person can buy
it and then give it away to everyone else for free with no legal
consequences.

[*snip*]

 

[Kevin Brown]

I work on commercial code... [*snip*]

Richard Stallman would be ASHAMED!!!
</sarcasm>

In case you didn't notice, the FSF is not opposed to commercial code,
but closed code.

I didn't notice, as it's quite hard to sell software when one person can
buy it and then give it away to everyone else for free with no legal
consequences.

FYI, Stallman made some money to get the FSF started by distributing
Emacs on tape.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

I was already 100% aware of this, and the fact that they still have no problem
selling the _distribution_ of free software. My point is that I see this as
a problem, for instance in my current system.

I'm not sure how much it will/won't sell. That's not my problem. The problem
comes that I feel a much higher need to produce high quality software than to
ensure it meets a license guideline. Thus, if I provide a way to distribute
it, it will be a good way. While technically Transgaming meets GPL, it does
so by giving you the code in an unuseful fashion.

This system will be written in Ruby. Therefore they get the code when I
distribute anyway. The only additional license requirement above the GPL is
that when a copy goes between companies (this will not be of interest to
individuals), that my company gets a _reasonable_ charge. I see this as
being more valuable to the common good than what transgaming is doing,
because if I were to distribute the source of my app, my company would
require me to make it more adventageous for the customer to buy.

It may be even possible (but the FSF surely doesn't encourage to) to
sell commercial licenses, cf. MySQL (though they are not the best
example).

This is why I'm responding. It's the problem I have with the FSF and the
like. It's 100% _POSSIBLE_. It's easy to do. Dual licensing even fits in
the GPL. Whether that fits into the piles of ethics of above groups is the
only question, but there was never a problem with the possibility of doing
so. So it annoys me to no end when these groups refer to the possibility of
a concept when they really mean "should we say this an ok usage of free
software?" Which is ironic as it implies that _free_ software should have
controls to FORCE it to STAY FREE OR ELSE YOU EVIL CAPITALIST PIG, which is
in many ways as unfree as the very software I'm writing. Once they've bought
my product, they have the source, and can modify/extend/learn to their
heart's content. If they sell something off of it, or re-distribute, we
believe we deserve a cut.

I get the intent of the joke, but I think it is important to clarify
this issue.

As do I. I think DRM, Microsoft style licensing, and the like are very
very dumb. We really are on the same team here, just that I feel people
should be able to charge for ANY distribution of the software, and
FSF/whoever feels only the first distribution of the software should be
chargable. How this makes software free or not, I'm not really sure.
Stallman likes to talk about a gas tax being better than toll booths. I
agree. All we want is a gas tax. I'm not going to make people call and
activate their product/enter serial numbers/whatever, nor am I going to
obfuscate the source.

 

[Greg Brown]

This is why I'm responding. It's the problem I have with the FSF and the
like. It's 100% _POSSIBLE_. It's easy to do. Dual licensing even fits in
the GPL. Whether that fits into the piles of ethics of above groups is the
only question, but there was never a problem with the possibility of doing
so. So it annoys me to no end when these groups refer to the possibility of
a concept when they really mean "should we say this an ok usage of free
software?" Which is ironic as it implies that _free_ software should have
controls to FORCE it to STAY FREE OR ELSE YOU EVIL CAPITALIST PIG, which is
in many ways as unfree as the very software I'm writing.

Permitting software to be commercial is part of the definition of free
software. Non-commercial licenses are NOT considered free software by
the FSF. In fact, to be GPL compatible, a license must explicitly
allow for commercial sale.

Once they've bought
my product, they have the source, and can modify/extend/learn to their
heart's content. If they sell something off of it, or re-distribute, we
believe we deserve a cut.

How far down the chain do you think this works? Do you think that an
author should pay for every book written in word? The ethics of this
boil down to software licensing, which by definition makes a piece of
software non free.

Whether or not this is good economics I will not flame on about.

As a side note, the idea behind commercial free software is that your
money should come from a service you provide that requires your time or
resources, such as improvements to code, convenient packaging,
documentation, etc, and not to the imaginary costs of replication,
which simply do not exist. Of course, you're free to charge whatever
people are willing to pay for your software, but there is no reason
that you should have a cut of their creations, whether or not they've
been inspired by you, because it is there extra effort that yields the
money. If this type of collaboration does not appeal to you, why even
bother using free software?

Of course, if you DO make your software free you can't demand a cut of
their money, but you can always integrate the improvements they've made
back into your work, which is a net benifit that probably outweighs
that of royalties.

The nature of copyleft is certainly subjective. I support it fully,
many in the ruby community do not. This is why you're free to use a
non copylefted free software license that is GPL compatible and keep
everyone happy.

<insult>

Then again, it seems like you're more interested in money than people
anyway, in which case, perhaps you might charge every time someone
types a keystroke into your program, considering that it IS interfacing
with your program, after all.

</insult>

 

[Greg Brown]

The reference was to Stallman, not the FSF. As near as I can tell,
Stallman is opposed to everything.

Richard Stallman does not pretend to be anything less than an idealist.
However, the first thing I got through his parser without some sort of
conflicts was amazingly my company proposal. For the easily
entertained, this proposal can be read at the link below.

http://www.stonecode.org/blog/?p=6

 

[Jeremy Tregunna]

Permitting software to be commercial is part of the definition of free
software. Non-commercial licenses are NOT considered free software by
the FSF. In fact, to be GPL compatible, a license must explicitly
allow for commercial sale.

Not necessarily, the license just must not explicitly forbid commercial
sale to be GPL compatible.

<insult>
...
</insult>

Can't we all just get along?

--
Jeremy Tregunna
(e-mail address removed)

"If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be
the process of putting them in." --Dykstra

 

[Greg Brown]

Not necessarily, the license just must not explicitly forbid commercial
sale to be GPL compatible.

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 "

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.

For the specifics:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html

Can't we all just get along?

Sorry... couldn't help being a bit facetious there.
But you're right, it was unnecessary.

 

[Jeremy Tregunna]

" The 'Ruby license' does not give permission to sell copies.
So it is not a free software license.

I was talking about the GPL not the Ruby 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.

No, in order to be GPL compatible (from a legal standpoint) you need
only to implicitly permit everything the GPL would, and not explicitly
add restrictions. What the FSF wants and what it is entitled to are two
entirely different things. I need not explicitly permit everything the
GPL does to be GPL compatible (c.f. 3 clause BSD License, etc).

For the specifics:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html

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.

--
Jeremy Tregunna
(e-mail address removed)

"If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be
the process of putting them in." --Dykstra

 

[Austin Ziegler]

" 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.

Fortunately, there are options other than Stallman's twisting of the
concept "free."

-austin

 

[snacktime]

------=_Part_3520_29337172.1128294504192
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

y h

Permitting software to be commercial is part of the definition of free
software. Non-commercial licenses are NOT considered free software by
the FSF. In fact, to be GPL compatible, a license must explicitly
allow for commercial sale.



How far down the chain do you think this works? Do you think that an
author should pay for every book written in word? The ethics of this
boil down to software licensing, which by definition makes a piece of
software non free.

Whether or not this is good economics I will not flame on about.

As a side note, the idea behind commercial free software is that your
money should come from a service you provide that requires your time or
resources, such as improvements to code, convenient packaging,
documentation, etc, and not to the imaginary costs of replication,
which simply do not exist. Of course, you're free to charge whatever
people are willing to pay for your software, but there is no reason
that you should have a cut of their creations, whether or not they've
been inspired by you, because it is there extra effort that yields the
money.

It's the combination of the original work and modifications that make up th=
e
total value proposition. A derivitive work may indeed add value, but part o=
f
the overall value is in the original software.

<insult>

Then again, it seems like you're more interested in money than people
anyway, in which case, perhaps you might charge every time someone
types a keystroke into your program, considering that it IS interfacing
with your program, after all.

</insult>

That's not really fair. Even if you believe that software patents are bad
for people, as an intelligent person you have to realize that many do not
agree. Personally I think that the goals of the FSF if realized would harm =
a
lot more people then it would help, and I don't think you care less about
people because you see it differently. I might think you are wrong and
debate your logic and understanding of economics, but I wouldn't call you a
bad person just because you see it differently.

Chris

------=_Part_3520_29337172.1128294504192--

 

[Gregory Brown]

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

 

[Gregory Brown]

It's the combination of the original work and modifications that make up the
total value proposition. A derivitive work may indeed add value, but part of
the overall value is in the original software.

This is true, but it is assumed that that part had already been paid
for once, and that people buying the derivative work are paying for
those enhancements, not the original software. Afterall, if those
enhancements weren't worth the money, individuals would buy the
original software.

The argument then becomes what if this third party sells the product
for cheaper than the original company or distributes it for free?

This is a very real issue, and my best response is that companies
should be in the position to make money off of service and innovation,
not the notion of 'intellectual property'. If they are already
centered around such a business model, the loss of royalties will be
minimal compared to the gain of others innovation and contribution. If
the business model is IP centric, then without a doubt, they will lose
out. This is the risk / payoff scenario a company must evaluate before
choosing to make their software free.

That's not really fair. Even if you believe that software patents are bad
for people, as an intelligent person you have to realize that many do not
agree. Personally I think that the goals of the FSF if realized would harm a
lot more people then it would help, and I don't think you care less about
people because you see it differently. I might think you are wrong and
debate your logic and understanding of economics, but I wouldn't call you a
bad person just because you see it differently.

You're right. My insult was uncalled for and I apologize to the OP and
to others for having said it, though it was more of a joke than
anything.

 

[Yukihiro Matsumoto]

Hi,

In message "Re: Ruby licence..."

|>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.

 

[Kevin Brown]

Kevin Brown wrote: [*snip*]

Once they've bought
my product, they have the source, and can modify/extend/learn to their
heart's content. If they sell something off of it, or re-distribute, we
believe we deserve a cut.

How far down the chain do you think this works? Do you think that an
author should pay for every book written in word? The ethics of this
boil down to software licensing, which by definition makes a piece of
software non free.

Not far at all. They do not have to pay per use, machine, or anything of the
sort. Simply, once your company purchases the product, the company can use
it to fit their needs, unless that involves giving it to a different company.

Whether or not this is good economics I will not flame on about.

As a side note, the idea behind commercial free software is that your
money should come from a service you provide that requires your time or
resources, such as improvements to code, convenient packaging,
documentation, etc, and not to the imaginary costs of replication,
which simply do not exist. Of course, you're free to charge whatever
people are willing to pay for your software, but there is no reason
that you should have a cut of their creations, whether or not they've
been inspired by you, because it is there extra effort that yields the
money. If this type of collaboration does not appeal to you, why even
bother using free software?

It does appeal to me, and the other reason to use free software is that it's
(in my opinion) better. Period.

Of course, if you DO make your software free you can't demand a cut of
their money, but you can always integrate the improvements they've made
back into your work, which is a net benifit that probably outweighs
that of royalties.

The nature of copyleft is certainly subjective. I support it fully,
many in the ruby community do not. This is why you're free to use a
non copylefted free software license that is GPL compatible and keep
everyone happy.

<insult>

Then again, it seems like you're more interested in money than people
anyway, in which case, perhaps you might charge every time someone
types a keystroke into your program, considering that it IS interfacing
with your program, after all.

I never considered for a second anything that interferes with the way the
program works. Doing this would involve logging keystrokes, counting,
calling home, lots of extra junk.

Side note: The people who buy my software WILL charge their customers by the
keystroke, or more accurately by the record entered. They are data entry
houses.

 

[Kevin Brown]

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...

 

[Gregory Brown]

Kevin Brown wrote: [*snip*]

Once they've bought
my product, they have the source, and can modify/extend/learn to their
heart's content. If they sell something off of it, or re-distribute, we
believe we deserve a cut.

How far down the chain do you think this works? Do you think that an
author should pay for every book written in word? The ethics of this
boil down to software licensing, which by definition makes a piece of
software non free.

Not far at all. They do not have to pay per use, machine, or anything of the
sort. Simply, once your company purchases the product, the company can use
it to fit their needs, unless that involves giving it to a different company.

That's still technically not free software. I think this may fit under
the Open Source definition though. Which of course, is better than
proprietary software and I've worked (and am working) on projects that
are under this kind of model. I still think that to go free where
possible is best, but any openness is better than none.

I never considered for a second anything that interferes with the way the
program works. Doing this would involve logging keystrokes, counting,
calling home, lots of extra junk.

Good. Sorry about that ridiculous accusation.

Side note: The people who buy my software WILL charge their customers by the
keystroke, or more accurately by the record entered. They are data entry
houses.

Yeah, I know how they roll, I'm basically in the same boat