On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 23:51:41 +0900, Anders Bengtsson wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> JRuby exists ...
>>      http://jruby.sourceforge.net/
>> but it's under the GPL (not even under the LGPL).
>> 
>> Blech.
> We intend to licence JRuby under both LGPL and GPL soon. Stay
> tuned.

That would be better than just GPL, although, IMO, still not
"right".

>> I realise that this person may be perfectly legitimate to do this
>> (although I'm not super sure; it's likely based on the existing
>> source and claims to be 1.6.7 compatible for most purposes), but
>> it's still nasty, IMO, not to do it under the same licence as the
>> base implementation.
> The base impl. is released under the GPL (among other licences).
> I'm surprised that someone would regard using that licence as
> "nasty".

Two different statements. IMO, it is bad spirited ("nasty", if you
will) for someone to take a program which is available under two
licences and choose only one of them for a reimplementation. I do,
by the way, consider the GPL to be an ill-advised choice for most
programs, especially programming languages. (The LGPL is better.
Much better.)

> Anyway, we're always open for suggestions on how we should licence
> JRuby. Would you see any problems with a combined GPL/LGPL?

As I said above, I think it's better. I don't necessarily think that
it's *right* to be GPL/LGPL; it should be, at least IMO, GPL and
Ruby/Artistic.

-austin
-- Austin Ziegler, austin / halostatue.ca on 2002.09.09 at 01.19.19