> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin J. Tilly [mailto:ben_tilly / operamail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 8:37 PM
> >===== Original Message From "Colin Sampaleanu" <cas / exis.com> =====
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Benjamin J. Tilly [mailto:ben_tilly / operamail.com]
> [...]
> >> Therefore I think it is important that they be usable within
> >> GPLed software, but I do not think that it is necessary that
> >> there be undue pressure to go GPL only.  OTOH it may be
> >> sufficient to require that all software on the RAA be under
> >> GPL compatible licensing terms.  That is loose enough to be
> >> usable under a wide range of situations, but it makes the
> >> rights clear enough that people will be free to cut the
> >> archive to CD, know that they can always combine components,
> >> etc.
> >
> >I have to agree. I'm not trying to start another license debate,
> and I stand
> >by anybody's right to put whatever license they wish to on their
> code; for a
> >number of reasons including the selfish one that open source of any kind,
> >even GPL, is better than no source at all. However I think a lot
> of the time
> >putting the GPL on a piece of code is equivalent to the 'kiss of death'
> >w/regards to a good portion of its potential users ever using or (perhaps
> >even more importantly) contributing to and growing the code.
> Almost anybody
> >working in a typical corporate or commercial environment simply can not
> >touch GPLed code due to its viral nature. I have followed a
> number of Apache
>
> Sorry, this appears to be a misunderstanding on your part of
> what the GPL is and how it works.  If you are using the
> software internally you can do whatever you want with it.
> If you don't plan to contribute or distribute, there are no
> restrictions on running it.  And corporate developers are
> free to contribute in their own time.
>
> Most corporate programmers do not distribute their software
> externally, and therefore the GPL is essentially irrelevant
> for them.

Sorry, my slant is colored by always having worked in the shrinkwrap world.
Ultimately, using GPL code affects the license of otherwise unrelated code
and forces you to lose some control over that other code. Depending on the
use of the software and the attritude of the company itself, this can means
use of GPL is completely unacceptable, manageable, or not a big deal at all.
Aside from immediate implications which have to be though about, it also
affects future use.

> >projects (the Apache license is pretty open, similar to BSD), and
> >contributed to a smaller extent with comments and patches, and
> have noticed
> >that a significant amount of work is done by people in a
> >commercial/corporate environment. Can a commercial entity
> benefit unfairly
> >from free source? Sure, I suppose. Is it still on the other hand in their
> >best interest to contribute to growing open-source projects they have an
> >interest in? Absolutely, and at least a certain portion do.
> Another option
> >is the middle ground licenses that try to force release of modified code,
> >but not using code...
>
> I have seen plenty contributed to GPLed projects from people
> in corporate/commercial environments.  And a lot of companies
> who wrote their own licenses have gone seriously out of their
> way to ensure that their licenses are GPL compatible.
>
> >As it is, the fact that base Ruby itself has some GPL-only
> pieces (as far as
> >I can tell, I am talking about things like getoptlong), are somewhat
> >worrying. It means that someone can not bundle Ruby in some code that
> >depends on it, without worrying about license implications. Asking a
> >neophyte to install Ruby themselves (w/necessary addons) instead
> of doing an
> >install for them is not always realistic), never mind the embedding
> >situation.
>
> Ruby's license claims that there is no code that is GPL only.
> Most of it is dual-licensed a modified Artistic + GPL.  The
> RE engine is LGPL.  All of that can be embedded within an
> application.

Perhaps there is cause for clarification then. If you look at getoptlong.rb
for example, it mentions that it is GPL, with no mention of any other
license. Unless I am misinterpreting things (and I am not a lawyer),
regardless of what the Ruby license claims I would take that to mean
getoptlong is GPL only, no? And I am in a real grey area here, but if that
is the case, does that also not mean that Ruby itself is forced to be GPL?
(which I know it is anyways, but theoretically by choice, not by mandate).

> Also note that a not inconsiderable number of developers
> prefer the GPL.  Relatively few projects have succeeded in
> attracting both people who like BSD type licenses and people
> who like the GPL approach.  Perl is one.  I have reason to
> hope that Ruby will be another.  Succeeding in that means
> avoiding evangelizing either.
>
> It is possible.  I would like to see it happen again.

I hope so too. I think the dual license situation is a good one when it can
be managed, and my intent was to help make sure the door is not shut on that
idea...