----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz / ruby-lang.org>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: JRuby (was Re: OS-independent build of ruby)


> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: JRuby (was Re: OS-independent build of ruby)"
>     on 02/09/09, Dave Thomas <Dave / PragmaticProgrammer.com> writes:
> 
> |>  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.
> |> 
> |> Rite will be released under this license.
> |
> |Matz:
> |
> |Are you going to allow modified versions to be called 'Ruby'?
> 
> That's one thing which is prohibited by the current license.  When I
> made up the current license, I felt it was a must.  But I now think no
> one would choose to use the name Ruby for a modified version, unless
> the one is irrational or has intention to cause confusion.  License
> has no power for both cases.  Interestingly, this is not prohibited by
> GPL either.
> 
> I even suspect no one wants to make modified version ever.

What constitutes a modified version?
What about ActiveScriptRuby and Apollo?

Hal