On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 05:47:17 +0000, Austin Ziegler wrote:

>> 1) It isn't a question of your opinion but a question of the license. I will discuss this topic
>> only with the copyright holders of the original ruby because in my opinion copyright violation is
>> a very hard accusation.
> 
> You're right. It's not a question of my opinion -- it's a question of the opinions of the copyright
> holders on Ruby and all of the modifications to Ruby up until the point from which you diverged from
> the existing source.
> 
> However, as someone who uses Ruby and might consider JRuby, it does matter to me. As such, it's
> definitely my right and responsibility to comment. It's also my right and responsibility to raise
> this issue in a forum where the original copyright holders -- who appear not to have been consulted
> about the choice of only one of the two available licences -- can be notified.

I don't have a problem to discuss about licenses but I have a problem if someone wants to
aggressively force me to change the license of a project.

>> 2) Main contributors of JRuby don't want to license JRuby under the Ruby license. If we really
>> have to use also the Ruby license we could throw away the whole existing JRuby code and restart
>> from nothing. But it should be clear that I wouldn't do this work again.
> 
> I think, then, that there's a problem. My understanding is that when a program is dual-licensed, you
> have the option of accepting it under either of the licences available.

We choose the GPL and get some rights and duties.

> However, modified versions
> *must* be released under both (or all) existing licences. I've put this question to Lawrence Rosen
> (lrosen / rosenlaw.com) who writes for one of LJ or LM. I haven't given details except the fact that
> the original project is under GNU GPL and/or artistic-style and the forked project is only available
> under GNU GPL.

I'm interested in his answer, too. But I wouldn't classify JRuby as a fork.

> I could be wrong. But even if I *am* legally wrong in my interpretation, it seems to go against the
> spirit of dually licenced software to do what you've done, which is to choose the worse of the two
> licences that Ruby has available.

That can be only discussed with the original copyright holders because it is your subjective opinion
that the GPL is the "worse" license.

> I am curious, though: why didn't the main contributors want to use Ruby's licences (both of them)?

These main contributors are not necessarily the current contributors. But I don't want a public
discussion about the decisions.

>> 3) We are working hard to release JRuby also under the LGPL. I spend a lot of time to create JRuby
>> and I never get any money for this work neither direct nor indirect. It is very depressing to be
>> confronted with your reproachs.
> 
> I'm not giving reproach. I'm raising questions. I think your effort is likely to be a good thing,
> but I think that your licencing choices may have been misguided. As I said in response to Anders, I
> think that LGPL + GPL is *better*, especially because of the problems that the GPL has with dynamic
> languages, but I still don't necessarily think that it's "right".

I see your mails as the attempt to aggressively force us to change the license. If that is not your
intention you shouldn't start such a "campaign".

>> If you want to use JRuby under another license you can contact us (with an adequate email) but if
>> you don't like the JRuby project and want to stop it you are on the right way.
> 
> I'm not interested in stopping the JRuby project. IMO, if it were licensed properly, it could make a
> good basis for a Ruby.NET. I'm just disappointed that people who obviously like a language and it's
> implementation enough to reuse it don't choose the whole of the licensing conditions under which it
> is available.

It isn't only a question about our current decisions but also a question of the project history and
copyright laws. If you had asked me why whe choose this license, I would have explained you the exact 
reasons for our decision.


Jan Arne Petersen