2011/8/3 Shyouhei Urabe <shyouhei / ruby-lang.org>:
> I think *you* are blamed.  You see the GPL file is confusing and that's because you are ignorant, he says.

Sorry.  I want you to clarify the license because I'm ignorant.

I'm suggesting just renaming or moving, not removing the GPL file.
Is it unacceptable?

I also want you to confirm my understanding is correct.
Ruby still has some codes licensed under dual license of Artistic
or GPL (a part (for windows) of util.c, win32/win32.c, and
ext/win32ole/win32ole.c), and they are actually mixed in the
binary, at least, for windows.  So A windows binary of Ruby must
be distributed under GPL unless we choose Artistic License.  Right?

Must a binary for other platforms be distributed under GPL in the
same condition?  Isn't it better that the part of util.c under GPL
should be separated into the other file?

-- 
Yusuke Endoh <mame / tsg.ne.jp>