On 7/27/07, Ken Bloom <kbloom / gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 01:10:16 +0900, Brian Tol wrote:
>
> > On 7/27/07, Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown / gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/27/07, Brian Tol <wiremine / gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > To be honest, that was my biggest hesitation in developing the site.
> >> > Pissing people off is the _last_ thing I want to do. On the other
> >> > hand, since (a) lots of gems need better (or _any_) documentation,
> >> > and (b) gems are licensed in such a way that allow for reuse like
> >> > this, I thought I'd give it a go.
> >>
> >> (b) isn't true.  What makes you assume that?
> >
> > Good to know. I looked through a couple hundred gems looking at licenses
> > before I started this thing, so that's where I got that idea, and looked
> > at this page:
> >
> > http://rubyforge.org/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=13
> >
> > The "Other/Proprietary License" licensed projects are either (a) dual
> > license under GPL, or (b) haven't released anything.
> >
> > The remaining gems are released under public domain, CC, OSI-approved,
> > or Ruby licenses. From what I've read, and in talking with other people,
> > the CC, OSI and Ruby licenses would work with rubypub.
> >
> > That all said, violating license terms is really antithetical to
> > rubypub's goals, so more feedback is appreciated. Violating licenses
> > doesn't help end-users, or gem authors.
>
> Just do an automatic check against the gem's listing on Rubyforge, and
> make sure it's an open source license. If so, then you're free to put the
> docs on your site (assuming you agree with the license yourself), and you
> don't have to pay attention to the author's wishes in contradiction with
> the license at all. (However, you may choose to do so as a courtesey.)

Open source does not (necessarily) mean freely modifiable.  Please be
sure that if you do this, that the licenses you check for are
compatible with CC S/A, not all will be.