On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> 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.

Is a rude tone is likely to help your case?  Especially when dealing with
people which you don't pay? (See: I'm asking questions! I don't accuse.)

> 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.

Why this -- comment --?  Do you think there is an obligation to consult 
them?  Or would politeness dictate consultation?  Or ethics?

You may notify anyone you want. In this case, you can be sure that (a) 
Matz knew about JRuby before you posted, (b) the JRuby authors had no 
obligation whatsover to inform any copyright holders about the existance 
of JRuby.

> 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.

What do you mean by "accepting it"?  You don't need to accept any license
to use ruby.  Only if you want to copy, modify, or distribute it.  
Because these actions are prohibited by copyright laws in most countries,
you need permission for doing them.  We usually call this permission
"license".  The permission may come at the cost of some obligations.

Please do explain what you mean by "accepting it" when you don't intend to 
copy, modify, or distribute Ruby.

Apart from that, there is no standard for dual-licensing.  Your rights and
duties depend on the precise text that states the dual-licensed-ness.  In
this case:

|| You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the 
|| GPL (see the file GPL), or the conditions below: [...]

Strictly speaking, this _is_ ruby's license (if you include the GPL and 
the "conditions below").  You may call it a dual-licensed scheme, but 
that's only your perception.

> However, modified versions
> *must* be released under both (or all) existing licences.

This is plain wrong.  What you might have once heard and might now have in
mind, that leads you to this idea, is that you cannot change the license
that covers the original code, even when it is part of the modified work.  
The author of the modified work can choose any license he wants for his
modifications and the modified work as a whole, as long as he makes sure 
that he complies to the license that covers the original code.  It is 
completely irrelevant if that license is a "dual-license" or not.

Here, in Ruby's case, your statement explicitly contradicts with the main
statement of Ruby's license.  This raises one question:  Did you actually
read Ruby's license?

> 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.

Could it be you should have asked before posting here (or refrain from 
insinuating a possible license breach)?  Your expert will need details on 
the "and/or" part to be able to judge this case.

> 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.

You are wrong, and your statement covering this possibility is amusing at
best.  As if there were a consensus on which one is the worse of any two
licenses.  Besides, can you please explain what you mean by "the spirit of
dually licenced software"?  (Feel free to point me to a web resource that
covers this.)