John Lam (CLR) wrote:
> As for *interpreting* those conditions, please make sure that you 
> consult with your friendly neighborhood attorney before making any 
> business decisions around this. Unfortunately, email threads on RubyTalk 
> and blog posts / comments on the internet don't count as legal advice :)

Doesn't your saying that we now need to get lawyers to tell us what we 
can and cannot do sort of tell us that the source is not open anymore? 
I thought that the idea was to relax and share openly, hence the term. 
If we have to cower and run to lawyers, who cannot tell us the right or 
wrong of it but only whether they can defend it when some other lawyer 
is paid to fight for the other team, then why would we want that around 
anyway?  Should open source be open source?

This is taking a most disheartening turn.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.