On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:01:34 +0900, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 05:37:49AM +0900, Peter Zotov wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 01:48:58 +0900, Chad Perrin wrote:
>> >
>> >I don't see any license listed.  Did I overlook it?
>>
>> The Ruby license, of course. It is implicit.
>> (Indeed, I just forgot to add it to git. Fixed already.)
>
> I haven't looked closely enough to know which way this goes, but one 
> of
> two sets of conditions are likely to apply here:
>
> 1. It's "implicit" because it incorporates Ruby Licensed code in a 
> way
> that requires the Ruby License to be applied to the whole project.  
> In
> this case, you violate the terms of the license if you do not include 
> the
> license text with the code.
>
> 2. It's not "implicit", and needs license notification.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I spend a lot of time trying to avoid giving
> lawyers reason to contact me with bad news.

 Please, treat all my words about implicit license as a form of bad 
 humor.
 It does not incorporate any external code, just mine, and I always 
 intended
 to use the Ruby license, but it somehow got not included in the git 
 tree.

 Thanks for your efforts.

-- 
   WBR, Peter Zotov.