From: "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.brown / gmail.com>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Bill Kelly<billk / cts.com> wrote:
> >
> > I tried to locate some information regarding the FSF
> > not considering the Ruby License a free software license,
> > but all I've found so far was this:
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Ruby
> >
> > Which says:
> > License of Ruby
> >
> > This 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.**"

I may be misunderstanding what is being discussed.  I didn't
finish the sentence deliberately, because GPL compatibility
is a different concept than something being a free software
license.

Numerous free software licenses are not GPL-compatible.

You stated, the Ruby License "is not considered a free
software license by the FSF".

That piqued my interest, as I don't understand why the
Ruby license would not be considered a free software
license.


Regards,

Bill