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: The Ruby license (again)
Date Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:17:57 GMT
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>

> --- Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.org> wrote:
> > What about replacing it with:
> >
> > ****
> > Can works under the Ruby license be included within
> > Apache products?
> That gives the connotation that the ASF can distribute
> such works within a product's tarball.  Is that what's
> really being requested, or do you just want to
> allow them to be external dependencies that
> the user downloads from somewhere else?
Correct, that would be the latter. Gems aren't included, they're just
defined as dependencies in your own Gem and then get installed transitively.
Like rpms or debs if you want. So the word included in the question is
probably misleading. What about this?

Can Apache projects have external dependencies on Ruby licensed works?

A project written primarily and obviously in Ruby can have a dependency
either on Matz's Ruby Interpreter (MRI), or on any Gem which is licensed
under the Ruby license.  Of course Gems written under other licenses (such
as MIT) may also be OK, depending on the license.


Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

View raw message