On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:11:12 +0900, Jan Arne Petersen wrote:
> 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.

Jan, not once have I suggested that you change the licences. I have
asked questions. As I said in my second email to you, it appears
that it may have been the JRuby project's legal licensed right to do
exactly what it did, but I don't think it's an ethical thing to have
done. You can keep on doing whatever you want without regard to my
belief that this is ethical or not (or even polite, which is where
the 'nasty' came in) -- but in no way does my mere opinion
constitute a campaign (aggressive or otherwise) to force you to
change the licence of a project. If that's how you've interpreted my
emails both privately and publically, then I think that you're being
overly sensitive on the matter.

To clarify: I don't think that it was ethically correct to choose
only the worse of the available licences, nor do I think it was
polite. You can take that as you will, and if you believe that I'm
simply spouting silliness, you're entirely free to do that. The only
ones who may have the power to force you to change the licence for
JRuby are those who have copyright interests in your program.

>>> 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.

Sorry -- I forgot to complete my thought here. Just because you've
accepted the software under one licence over another does not remove
the fact that it is in fact licensed under *both* licences and both
apply fully at all times. At least, that's my understanding.

>> 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.

JRuby is a fork and a port both. I'm considering doing a Delphi
fork/port of libgtkhtml -- but I still feel that I'll be bound by
the libgtkhtml licence, even though I'll be rewriting 90% or more
of the code because Delphi doesn't do GTK+ (thankfully). Thus, I
have to seriously consider whether I want to invest that effort.

>> 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.

Actually, no, it can be discussed with anyone. Only the original
copyright holders can actively request that you do anything about
it. And, with respect to the dynamism which is Java, the GPL is
definitely the worse of the two licences, as there's absolutely no
way to prevent or detect violations of the GPL (because it may be
done automatically by the programs).

>> 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.

Why not?

>>> 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".

I haven't campaigned. I haven't been agggressive. I am most
assuredly not trying to force you to do anything. I'm asking
questions. If being asked questions about something causes YOU
problems, then I can't help that. It does suggest that the original
decision bothers you and perhaps wasn't the best choice. But I
haven't yet said that you "had better" change the licence. I just
think that there is a question of politeness (even more than ethics,
and definitely outside of the realm of what is legal).

>> > 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.

Odd. I would have personally taken it upon myself to explain why to
anyone who asks about the licence and why it diverges from Ruby's
licence.

-austin
-- Austin Ziegler, austin / halostatue.ca on 2002.09.09 at 10.01.28