* Yukihiro Matsumoto (matz / ruby-lang.org) wrote:

> In message "Re: Epic4/Ruby" on 02/02/21, Thomas Hurst
> <tom.hurst / clara.net> writes:
>
> > Modifying Ruby also looks slightly grey; the license mentions you
> > can either make your modifications public, or provide original
> > executables; what about libraries?  An embedded Ruby interpreter is
> > likely to be in the form of a .dll, is that covered under the term
> > "executable"?
>
> Yes.  Should I use the term "compiled binary"?

That's clearer, I'd go with binary/binaries though:

       c) rename any non-standard binaries so the names do not
       conflict with standard binaries, which must also be provided.

The term "compiled" seems a bit much.

> I understand what you mean.  But it's kinda hard to change the license
> terms used for years.  Rite will be covered by far simpler license.

This is pretty much what PHP did; rewrite and change to a much more
liberal license.

Still, don't see PHP embedded anywhere outside a few webservers.. wonder
why <grin>

> # Permission is granted for use, copying, modification, distribution,
> # and distribution of modified versions of this work as long as the
> # above copyright notice is included.

Much nicer.

> > > regex.c is still LGPL
[..]
> > Is that the only component that's not covered by the Ruby license now?
> > That's not what the license says.. :)
>
> That is the only component that's covered by GNU license.  See LEGAL file.

Ok.  Interesting mix in there.. :)

-- 
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst  -  freaky / aagh.net  -  http://www.aagh.net/
-
If you can't learn to do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly.