On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 12:02:39 +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 11:52:15 +0900, Christian Szegedy wrote:
>> Austin Ziegler wrote:
>>> 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.
>> It is as nasty as releasing gcc under GPL :)
> Well, no, because gcc explicitly states that output is simply
> that, and isn't covered. It's more like releasing "bison" under
> the GPL. The difference, of course, is that because Java is a
> relatively dynamic language, you may have a GPL-conflict without
> even knowing it. In theory, you could use JRuby to script
> JavaBeans; however, if those Beans are under a non-GPL-friendly
> licence, and you may not know it if it's something sent to you by
> an application server, then you have violated the GPL. Further,
> JRuby is intended to be embedded in Java applications, which means
> that they must be GPLed or able to be taken over by the GPL.

BTW, I'm having a discussion with the lead developer on the JRuby
project about this, and how I personally believe that he's rather
twisted the spirit of Ruby's artistic licence by choosing only the
GPL. IMO, JRuby shouldn't be considered a Ruby unless it's under the
same licensing conditions as Ruby -- which is friendly to all
comers, unlike GPLed programs.

-austin
-- Austin Ziegler, austin / halostatue.ca on 2002.09.08 at 09.55.21