* Phil Tomson (ptkwt / shell1.aracnet.com) wrote:

> In article <20020218190546.GA85367 / voi.aagh.net>,
> Thomas Hurst  <tom.hurst / clara.net> wrote:

> > I would push to get Ruby adopted for a few apps I'm involved in, but
> > Ruby being GPL (*spit*) will probably make this pretty much a no-go
> > area, especially since Ruby isn't exactly the most well established
> > language :(
>
> And what's wrong with GPL? (he asks, ducking for cover:)...

Want the list? :P

All my software's BSD licensed, I can't touch GPL code without it
becoming GPL itself, hence making it useless for use in closed work,
hence reducing it's usefulness and openness, making it less free, and
increasing the amount of redundant work the human race has to do to
achieve it's goals.  Plus it's longer and less elegant :P

> Well, maybe LGPL would be better for allowing Ruby to be embedded into
> commercial apps.

Ooh, Richard won't like that ;)

> Actually, if you look in the COPYING file that comes with the ruby
> source distribution you'll see that it's licensed under the GPL -OR-
> several listed conditions.  Here's #4:

Oh, yes, I'd forgotten about that.

> " 4. You may modify and include the part of the software into
> any other software (possibly commercial).  But some files in the
> distribution are not written by the author, so that they are not under
> these terms.

Um, wouldn't it have been simpler and meant the same thing to license as
BSD?  Authors of other files can GPL those files and that spreads to the
BSD stuff, but once you remove them the terms are the same.  Or am I
missing something? :)

-- 
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst  -  freaky / aagh.net  -  http://www.aagh.net/
-
Spring is here, spring is here,
Life is skittles and life is beer.