www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Ruby license and Ruby packaging
Date Sat, 01 Sep 2007 02:01:26 GMT
On 8/31/07, Erik Abele <erik@codefaktor.de> wrote:
>
> No, it doesn't matter, we can still license our own work as we see
> fit, but see below.

Actually, I believe that's the crucial bit here.  If it weren't for
the fact that .gem files are exploded upon installation this
discussion would be very straightforward.

I believe that the license in question will fit into "Category B", the
only question remaining would be how we can document and package our
downloads in ways that "minimize the chance that a user of an Apache
product will create a derivative work of a reciprocally-licensed
portion of an Apache product without being aware of the applicable
requirements."

I have to believe that this is possible.  To believe otherwise would
essentially lock much of the development of Ruby code out of the ASF,
which would be rather unfortunate.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message