Hi,

In message "Re: Why ruby license?"
    on Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:46:07 +0900, Johan Gustav <johan.postbox / gmail.com> writes:

|1. Why  has Ruby  its own license and are not licensed under something
|like the Apache license?

Just because Ruby is older than Apache.

|2. Why is Ruby not dual license with the Apache license, rather then the
|GPL?  which I understand is more closer to the ruby license and not as
|restrictive as the GPL license?

It needs GPL dual to accomplish GPL compatibility.  I don't want to
see any problem linking with GPL libraries, e.g. readline.

							matz.