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: The Ruby license (again)
Date Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:19:54 GMT
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>  > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>  >  > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:36:37PM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  > So, I would be inclined to say that for any project written primarily
>  >  >  > and obviously in Ruby (such as Buildr), that any dependency either
on
>  >  >  > Matz's Ruby Interpreter (MRI), or on any Gem which is licensed under
>  >  >  > the Ruby license is OK.  Of course Gems written under other licenses
>  >  >  > (such as MIT) may also be OK, depending on the license.
>  >  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  +1
>  >
>  >  Published as:
>  >
>  >  ****
>  >  Can works under the Ruby license be included within Apache products?
>  >
>  >  Yes, though not Matz's Ruby Interpreter (MRI) itself due to the
>  >  specific conditions relating to it in the license.
>  >  ****
>
>  Um, that's saying something quite different.
>
>  While depending on a gem is quite clear.  Including (as in taking the
>  source, checking it into our svn, and distributing) requires us to
>  either leave the source unmodified, or choosing to either (1) treat
>  the code as if it were under a category "B" license, (2) not
>  distribute, or (3) rename non-standard excutables, or (4) negotiate a
>  different license.
>
>  Even if we look at the simplest case (i.e., unmodified), we still need
>  to ensure that downstream licensees are aware that this code is made
>  available under different conditions than they might expect.  This
>  lead the drafters of the 3party.html policy to require that all such
>  usages be binary, and exclude scripts.
>
>  We can certainly spend time and try to work out these details, but to
>  date all that has been requested is the ability to depend on gems
>  under the Ruby license, and my preference would be that we capture the
>  consensus on that, considerably more limited, permission and come back
>  to this issue if and when something more is required.

Oops - yep, my misunderstanding of what we were saying in the threads.

I'll either fix tonight [hasn't been svn updated on www.apache.org
yet, though anyone could do that accidentally while doing another
page], or if someone can delete the text that would be great.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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