www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthieu Riou" <matth...@offthelip.org>
Subject Re: Ruby license and Ruby packaging
Date Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:11:55 GMT
On Dec 6, 2007 1:24 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

> On Aug 29, 2007 2:53 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We're thinking of proposing buildr [1] for the Apache Incubator. However
> > buildr is a Ruby project and there are a few associated legal hurdles on
> the
> > way. So I have a few questions:
> >
> > 1. The Ruby interpreter is not really a problem (just like the JDK isn't
> a
> > problem),
>
> Yep, it's environmental and installed by the user. If we had a JNLP,
> then the JDK might do an automatic upgrade or something; but I think
> you get a click through license.
>
> > however a lot of libraries in the Ruby ecosystem reuse the Ruby
> > license [2]. Is it compatible with the ASL and would it be authorized
> for
> > third-party inclusion in an Apache work?
> >
> > 2. Ruby distribution heavily relies on the RubyGems [3] packaging
> system. In
> > many ways it's very similar to Linux packaging systems, like APT. In
> short
> > it handles third party dependencies for a given software by installing
> them,
> > after asking. So if you try to install "foo" and if "foo" depends on
> "bar"
> > and "baz", it will ask you whether you also want to install "bar" and
> "baz"
> > and if so, will download them from a central repository and install them
> for
> > you. In this context, does the licenses of third-party dependencies
> matter
> > as none of them are actually distributed?
> >
> > Buildr as several dependencies toward Ruby License third party softwares
> and
> > a couple ones toward LGPL software (that wouldn't be that easy to
> remove),
> > which normally wouldn't be kosher at all. However given that none of
> them
> > are distributed, would that matter?
>
> The answer I've always seen on this is that it has to be apparent to
> the user that they are installing them, and that they see the license;
> rather than magic that happens in the background.
>

So in the case of RubyGems, it's definitely apparent as it asks you whether
you want to install those dependencies or not (unless you force a yes to all
using a specific option but then you know what you're doing). The license is
not displayed for every dependency though but you know you're installing
something else.

Cheers,
Matthieu


> Hen
>

Mime
View raw message