On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Bill Kelly<billk / cts.com> wrote:
>
> From: "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.brown / gmail.com>
>>
>> The trouble is that the Ruby License (on its own) is not considered a
>> free software license by the FSF, which makes it incompatible with the
>> GPL.
>> The only thing that makes Ruby free software in the eyes of the FSF is
>> the fact that it is dual licensed.
>
> I tried to locate some information regarding the FSF
> not considering the Ruby License a free software license, but all I've fo=
und
> so far was this:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Ruby
>
> Which says:
> =A0License of Ruby
>
> =A0This is a free software license ...

You didn't finish the sentence:

"This is a free software license, compatible with the GPL **via an
explicit dual-licensing clause.**"

This is technically true of anything with an explicit dual license.
(Such as GPL or pay for license) models.
If you dual license with the GPL, and your codebase is GPL compliant,
the other license could be "You must ride a pony while using this
software OR abide by the GPL" and it'd be valid.

To be fair, there isn't anything except for wording that might get in
the way of Matz's terms being considered a free software license.
And for a bit more disclosure, I had asked this question a while back
to Richard Stallman directly in an email, so...  I'm not sure it has
been discussed extensively beyond that.

-greg