On 01/09/10 at 01:30 +0900, NARUSE, Yui wrote:
> Ruby's License will change to BSDL + Ruby's dual license
> 
> == Background
> 
> Ruby's License, which is used as the license of Ruby and other related software,
> says it is dual license: GPLv2 or Ruby's in a narrow sense.
> 
> But it has following problems:
> * it is not compatible with GPLv3
> * a modest person can't port Ruby's code into BSDL
> * a greed person can port Ruby's code into public domain
>   (use quotation clause)
> 
> So copyleft spirit of Ruby's License is the barrier to BSDL,
> but can't effect to modified codes.
> 
> == Change
> 
> current: GPLv2 + Ruby's
> new: BSDL + Ruby's

That's the 3-clause BSD license, not the 4-clause one, right?

> == Merit
> 
> * you can use Ruby with GPLv3 software
> * you can port Ruby's code into BSDL code	
> 
> == Demerit
> 
> nothing: because people can everything with change the name or quotation clause.

May I ask why you did not completely drop the Ruby licence, and only use
BSD ? Since the BSD is the more permissive of the two, everybody not
following the Ruby license can instead follow the BSD license anyway.
And it would make the whole licensing situation much simpler.

> It was discussed in [ruby-dev:39167], [ruby-core:25272] and so on.
> Initial decision was made on RubyKaigi 2010 by Matz.
> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/wiki/ruby/DevelopersMeeting20100827

On a side note, this document says that Debian squeeze uses 1.9.1. That
is not true, we transitioned to 1.9.2 shortly before the 1.9.2 release,
though the packages are still named *ruby1.9.1 because we version them
with the ruby compatibility version, not the ruby version itself. (it
would be too complex to have a transition to change the naming now, as
it would require modifying all ruby library packages.)

Lucas