"OBATA Akio" <obache%netbsd.org@localhost> writes: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:34:33 +0900, Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> > wrote: > >> "OBATA Akio" <obache%netbsd.org@localhost> writes: > >>> * ruby-license itself is like a artistic license >> >> Interesting - I was not able to figure that out from reading it. > > Matz said, "ruby's license came from perl's artistic license with some > modification". > And it seems that he want to apply more relaxed license than GPL to ruby. > (Why now GPL? because early ruby version contains GPLed regex library). OK - then maybe it can be submitted to OSI/FSF for evaluation/approval. A view that a project that wants to be free software should choose an approved license or get theirs approved is perhaps a bit harsh, but is increasingly what I'm thinking as we go through this. >> I can see the point that people might want to avoid GPL for things they >> are redistributing, perhaps building into a product. The license >> framework is not intended to enable such people to set a few variables >> and have their product be clean - it's just to avoid accidentally >> building software with objectionable licenses. > > Hmm...I felt that new license framework is for such people... Anyone shipping a product would be crazy to rely solely on the license framework. It would be a helpful tool to keep the development team in check (by forcing the setting of a product-compatible ACCEPTABLE_LICENSE value) pending the real, formal evaluation. With products the real question is what code one makes proprietary modifications to - it's not an actual problem to ship sources for unmodified or willing-to-share-modified. So a straight ACCEPTABLE_LICENSE test doesn't really solve the problem. I think it's a useful mechanism, but that it's mostly useful in less critical situations.
Attachment:
pgpD3LHtagxKg.pgp
Description: PGP signature