On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Bill Kelly<billk / cts.com> wrote:
>
> 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.  ¨Â äéäî§ô
> 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.

I can try to get another email by the Stallman-to-real-world compiler,
or maybe we could ask the FSF Licensing and Compliance Lab?

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/

I think it is because Matz's terms do not explicitly grant the freedom
to sell the software, even though his terms implicitly say they may be
used for 'possibly commercial' means.  The FSF can be pretty
aggressive about their interpretations of things...

But I could have misunderstood their stance here, so in either case,
if you want me to try to get a more definite answer, just let me know.
FWIW, I was suggesting we should either a)  Add explicit GPL 2 or 3
terms to the current license, or b) drop it entirely in favor of
MIT/BSD/etc.

I don't think that c) is ever going to be a good option (Just use Matz's terms).

-greg