Hi,

You didn't write any question. Your post did not have any question
mark except in the quote. ;-)

But, anyway, it's OK to use, link, or merge Ruby in your application.
Incompatibility to GPL forces you to apply Artistic-like terms of Ruby
license, which is not GPL compatible either.

That means you cannot *link* GPL products.  But Ruby does not make
things worse.

							matz.
In message "License Question"
    on 02/10/10, Chris Gehlker <canyonrat / mac.com> writes:

|I'm working on a project with the working title of "Ruby Automation 
|Language" (Ruby AL). It's a component for Script Editor and friends on 
|Jaguar that implements 'watch me' automation. That is, the user can 
|open the Editor and a target application, click the record button, 
|start working in the target application, and Ruby AL generates Ruby 
|code to repeat her actions. It's a way to quickly script workflow in 
|Ruby.
|
|I want to release this under the Academic Free License Version 1.1. 
|http://www.opensource.org/licenses/academic.php I am given to 
|understand that the AFL is not compatible with the current version of 
|the GPL though it may be compatible with the next version. It does seem 
|compatible with Ruby's own license but IANAL.
|
|My problem is that when I went to the FSF site for guidance, I found 
|this:
|
|<quote>
|"What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal 
|question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper 
|criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, 
|rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the 
|semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are 
|interchanged).
|
|"If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are 
|definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run 
|linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means 
|combining them into one program.
|
|"By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are 
|communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. 
|So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are 
|separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are 
|intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too 
|could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger 
|program."
|</quote>
|
|This seems to be saying both "yes" and "no" to me because, in run mode, 
|Ruby AL just opens a pipe to Ruby sends it the script. That's the 
|point. Ruby AL is just a front end to *real* Ruby.
|
|I'm asking Matz, as the copyright holder of Ruby, to give me a legal 
|OK. I'd like the Ruby community to comment on the ethics. This would 
|make Ruby a fairly intimate part of some very non-free software but it 
|seems to me that WIN32OLE has already been down that road.
|-- 
|As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty, 
|and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life - so I became a 
|scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls. 
|-Matt Cartmill, anthropology professor and author (1943- )
|
|
|