Hi,

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: Epic4/Ruby"
>     on 02/02/22, Jonas Bow <jonas / rfc1918.com> writes:
> 
> |The problems with the Ruby license in commercial/OEM situations are that
> |it is vague and a bit fuzzy because of all the alternatives in it.
> 
> Although I know fuzziness of the license, these three statements below
> are misleading at most.  I hope you're not trying FUD against GPL.

What do you mean with FUD against GPL? It's not just my own opinion that
GPL is the best way to destroy intellectual efforts.

> 
> |The word "GPL" is considered to be a poison
> |regardless what is mentioned otherwise in the license.
> 
> |As long as Ruby has any kind of relationship with the GPL it will have a
> |hard time to be part of commercial software, IMHO.
> 
> |It seems that the only license working in commercial situations is the
> |BSD-license.
> 
> And I feel if you want to make money from MY works, it is reasonable
> to take time to read the terms carefully.

Again, what I think about the license is not interesting. It is what
lawyers say about it. Right now it is a no-go to use Ruby other in
commercial products.

I don't think in terms of making money of you work. I like the language
you have created a lot. I have no emotional relationship to the
implementation itself. I mean, I like programming in C too, but I don't
really care about the compiler itself.

To summarize: I really like the ruby *language* and I would appreciate
to be able to use it in the future in my work and not just writing small
scripts at home. Don't mix up the legal stuff (what lawyers say about
the license) and what I think as a user of a language.

Thanks again for a great language!

regards,
	jonas


> 
>                                                         matz.