On 8/13/05, Greg Brown <greg7224 / gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

If that's the clause that makes the difference between the CAL and the
AL, then you're right. However, I was looking at the title.

>> 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.

Ah. That's where we differ. I disapprove of RMS and the FSF's methods
(not so much the ideals) so strongly that, given a choice, I will not
licence anything GPLed and if there's a choice between a GPLed library
and a non-GPLed library, I will preferentially use the non-GPLed library
even at the possible expense of features. I have no issue with the GNU
GPL *as a licence philosophy*, but I have major problems with the
politicised preamble that I do not wish to redistribute. Ever. I also
have major issues with the denial of the GNU GPL as a viral licence
(that's a feature of the licence, not a negative point), the whole
"software freedom" issue (as if software were something that could be
emancipated), and in general the deception that goes on surrounding the
GNU GPL.

IMO, there's similar licences (the Mozilla PL, for one) that are
friendlier, stronger, and have no political crap surrounding them. IIRC,
there's a licence that is a variant of the GNU GPL simply with the
preamble removed.

Note that disjunctive licensing is questionable at best, at leaves your
users open to choose whichever licence they want. Strictly speaking,
although I've preserved the intent of several packages (e.g.,
Text::Format, others) by keeping the GPL as one of the specified
licences, but I could have *simply* chosen to change the licence for the
Ruby version as the Artistic licence, completely ignoring the GNU GPL's
existence on the Perl version of Text::Format.

Not trying to be difficult here or even start a flamewar, but trying to
explain why I prefer the other licences to the GNU GPL.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca