www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ruby license and Ruby packaging
Date Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:20:07 GMT
On Nov 28, 2007 4:45 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> >
> > the ruby license is badly drafted
> Care to cite a specific issue?

Reminds me that we should put Artistic on the list somewhere.

> > 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.

Agreed - dual licensing seems to be here to stay.

> > 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.

What's the point?

Category B says 'no scripting languages'. The Ruby license is unlikely
to be applied to binary packages.


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