On 3/12/07, Robert Dober <robert.dober / gmail.com> wrote:

> I have heard of that and I was quite alarmed about it. I do not
> however think that one should forget the importance of GPL and it's
> inventor on the paradigm change in society.

Using the License of Ruby (so long as you follow it exactly),
guarentees GPL compatibility while still extending to you users the
choice of a more permissive license, on par with that of the MIT or
BSD licenses.

To me, this is a matter of pragmatic compromise.  I'm totally in the
'we can't ignore the GPL' camp but we also shouldn't impose it on
others.

Matz (possibly following Larry Wall's example) has provided a good way
to compromise.  Dual licensing is confusing but would be less so if it
became a defacto community standard.  (Except in situations where
that's not possible, of course).