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