In article <13383d7a.0406160752.1443e31c / posting.google.com>, matt wrote:
[...]
>#### License:                                                       
>####
>####    The least restrictive license applicable to this software   
>####
>####    given that it was written in ruby and uses the ruby library.
>####
>####    I don't really know that much about such things, so if there
>####
>####    isn't anything in the way, consider this released under the 
>####
>####    public domain, free for all!                                
[...]

A lot of people say "under Ruby's license" so that the library is under
exactly the same license as Ruby. This has always worried me a bit - what 
Ruby's license changes in the future.

Maybe we need a "RPL 1.0" (Ruby Public License).

You can put your code in the public domain, meaning that you relinquish
copyright over it (so putting something in the public domain is not a
"license"), but someone on slashdot ;-) said that this is a problem in some
countries. (Germany?)

Alternatively, the following (MIT-style license) is very un-restrictive:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

It basically says "do anything you want, but leave me copyright notice in
the source code + NO WARRANTY".