On 7/31/07, evanwebb / gmail.com <evanwebb / gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 30, 3:24 pm, Alex Young <a... / blackkettle.org> wrote:
> > >> That's why I mentioned rubinius - it's BSD-licensed, isn't it?
> >
> > > What I'm saying is that my guess is that Rubinius would use the MRI
> > > implementations rather than wasting time building them from scratch.
> > > MIT License is compatible with the License of Ruby + GPL, i think
> > > IronRuby's license isn't.
> >
> > Taking another look at the Rubinius project page, it seems that they
> > have, indeed, imported the 1.8 MRI stdlib.  I need more coffee.
> >
> > > When you use parts of a project that are under a different license,
> > > you usually can't change the license terms without permission.  Which
> > > means the Rubinius standard library would be under License of Ruby,
> > > not MIT, if they use the MRI implementations.
> >
> > Yup, agreed - this tangent was entirely inspired by the false assumption
> > (on my part) that for some reason there was a large part of stdlib being
> > recoded as part of the rubinius project.
> >
>
> To set the record straight:
>
> 1) Rubinius is BSD licensed.

Whoops, I somehow threw MIT in there in place of BSD, but what I said
holds the same for BSD. :)