Issue #2032 has been updated by Kazuhiko Shiozaki.


greg:
> But using a GPL3 library is problematic for a different reason.  It is
> not compatible with GPL2, nor is it compatible with Matz's license.

Exactly.
If we want to link GPL3 (or later :p) library with Ruby, we have following
possibilities.

* change Ruby's license to "(GPL2 or later) or Matz L."
* change Ruby's license to "(GPL3 or later) or Matz L."
* change Ruby's license to any GPL compatible license, eg. MIT L., BSD L. etc.

The followings are what Matz said, FYI (translated by me):

* http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/20030607.html#p06
> I'm planning to use the following license for RITE:
> /*
>  * Copyright (C) 2003 Yukihiro "matz" Matsumoto
>  *
>  * Permission is granted for use, copying, modification, distribution,
>  * and distribution of modified versions of this work as long as the
>  * above copyright notice is included.
>  */

* http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/20030608.html#p02
> When I defined Ruby's license, I wanted to permit reuse of a part of codes
> explicitly. But in reality, BSD license or GPL also fulfills my desire enough
> (though not so explicitly).

According to his words, I guess that MIT (or BSD) license can be a good choice,
if we change the license.

And as Shyouhei said, I am afraid that the following can have a license problem.
$ ruby -r readline -r openssl
Because ...
* OpenSSL is not GPL-compatible, so we need to choose Matz L. for '-r openssl'.
* Matz L. is not GPL-compatible, so we need to choose GPL for '-r readline'.
This problem exists even with GPL2 readline, even if we change the license,
unless we make an GPL-compatibile alternative for ruby-openssl (using GNU TLS
for example).

BTW, 'loading ruby script' itself is not 'link', in FSF's statement.
See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL for the
detail.

Kazuhiko
----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/2032

----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org