On 03/21/2013 06:41 AM, Axel Friedrich wrote:
>> 3) think about changing the license to ruby, mit, or bsd. gpl is
>> generally discouraged in our community.
> 
> The truth is, I didn't want to bother with license. But I felt, I need
> one, and GPL was one I often saw together with software. That's the only
> reason why I took GPL. - Saying, "license is same as Ruby's", would that
> be enough? Or, can the most important advantages/disadvantages of
> ruby/mit/bsd be told in a few easy sentences? I need not to have it
> perfect.
> 

The MIT and BSD licenses basically ensure that you get attribution for
your work.  If someone wants to redistribute the software themselves,
they must include your license.

The GPL does that too, but it also requires that developers who use the
library in their own work make available the source code, and make
available any changes they've made to the source code.

If you just want a license that ensures (1) other developers can legally
use your code for themselves and (2) you receive credit, then an MIT or
BSD license is fine.

If you're concerned that a big faceless corporation is going to make
changes to your code that it doesn't release to the public, then you
want the GPL.

-- 
- Grant

https://www.rubygems-openpgp-ca.org/ Sign your gems.