Trans wrote:
> Rails uses the MIT license. The Ruby license is essentially the GPL
> (it's a dual license).
> 
> So what are the basic differences between the two and why would you
> pick one over the other?
> 
> Thanks,
> T.
> 
> 

T.,

I normally enjoy your posts, and I do hate to be negative, but it feels 
like ruby-talk has been plagued with a lot of 
200-followup-barely-on-topic threads lately, and your post could easily 
be (given this strong opinions that people can form about FOSS 
licensing) the start of yet another.

Would it be too much to ask for you to go off and read some of the 
commentary on these licenses that can be found on the web, form some 
conclusions, and then, if necessary (and I don't think it will be) 
follow up with "I've read this material and this is what I think and 
here are some RUBY-SPECIFIC questions I have or conclusions I've come to 
that I'd like to share?"

You can start your research with the text of the licenses. MIT is here: 
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php. GPL here: 
http://www.gnu.org. I notice several books are available on Amazon, 
including _Understanding_Open_Source_and_Free_Software_Licensing_.

To the list, I apologize. I try to keep my posts positive, contributory, 
and on-topic. I recognize that this one is simply cranky.