Perhaps this wouldn't be as restrictive as it sounds if someone would
make a list of exactly what parts fall under what licensing.  I suspect
that with this someone could package a distribution where everything
falls under the artistic license, and document missing capabilities (if
any).

Thomas Hurst wrote:
> > 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.

-- 
Alexander Schofield