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 Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:45:35 GMT
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> the ruby license is badly drafted

Care to cite a specific issue?

> it is also a dual license. (there has been legal doubt raised over the
> exact meaning of dual licenses - see
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html#x1-90004)

We have plenty of examples where we have accepted multiple licensed code 
in the past.  Pretty much all MPL licensed code is either dual licensed 
or even triple licensed.

> IMO these risks are sufficiently large to ask council to take a look
> before allow it 

Note that we are talking 'category B' here -- which essentially means 
incorporating binaries whole, and without modification.

Badly drafted but well known and widely used is often better than 
apparently clear but unknown; similarly multiply licensed codebase may 
create problems for some (like contributors) and not for others.

> - robert

- 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

View raw message