Austin Ziegler wrote:

> Neither the Ruby licence nor the Clarified Artistic licences are
> "approved" by the OSI (www.opensource.org).


That's not true.  The 8th clause is the one that makes the Artistic
license GPL compatible, and the approval by OSI is listed below:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php

> That said, the Ruby
> licence is pretty clear as to what's allowed (pretty much "anything").
> I still think that your best choice is going to be BSDish or MITish,
> but if you go with anything else, then you'll probably need to do
> CAL/GPL disjunctive or the Ruby licensing option.


I am honestly not interested in using a BSD or MIT style license.  I
understand there is a strong tradition in the Ruby community to lean
this way, and I respect this, but I am in favor of the FSF's ideals and
am looking to preserve them as much as possible while still offering a
fair and pragmatic licensing scheme for my software.