[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

A question on Ruby license

David Garamond

1/10/2005 5:31:00 PM

Suppose I modify Ruby 1.8.2, create some incompatible changes, and call
it "Ruby 1.8.99". Can I distribute it within my own company? (I assume
yes?) Can I distribute it open-source+Freely on the Internet? What if I
call it "SuperRuby 1.0", or "DavesRuby 1.0" or "Topaz 1.0"? Would that
be called a fork? How does the Ruby copyright/license regulate forks?

Regards,
Dave
4 Answers

Dick Davies

1/10/2005 5:44:00 PM

0

* David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> [0131 17:31]:
> Suppose I modify Ruby 1.8.2, create some incompatible changes, and call
> it "Ruby 1.8.99". Can I distribute it within my own company? (I assume
> yes?) Can I distribute it open-source+Freely on the Internet? What if I
> call it "SuperRuby 1.0", or "DavesRuby 1.0" or "Topaz 1.0"? Would that
> be called a fork? How does the Ruby copyright/license regulate forks?

I think it's a BSD-alike licence, so yes, so long as the derived work
gives credit.

--
'Yeah, well I'm gonna build my own themepark! With blackjack aaand Hookers!
Actually, forget the park. And the blackjack.'
-- Bender
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns

gabriele renzi

1/10/2005 5:54:00 PM

0

David Garamond ha scritto:
> Suppose I modify Ruby 1.8.2, create some incompatible changes, and call
> it "Ruby 1.8.99". Can I distribute it within my own company? (I assume
> yes?) Can I distribute it open-source+Freely on the Internet? What if I
> call it "SuperRuby 1.0", or "DavesRuby 1.0" or "Topaz 1.0"? Would that
> be called a fork? How does the Ruby copyright/license regulate forks?

well:
3. You may distribute the software in object code or executable
form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
[...]
c) give non-standard executables non-standard names, with
instructions on where to get the original software distribution.

seems enough to name it Topaz and put instructions.

Douglas Livingstone

1/10/2005 10:47:00 PM

0

> well:
> 3. You may distribute the software in object code or executable
> form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
> [...]
> c) give non-standard executables non-standard names, with
> instructions on where to get the original software distribution.

So not "Ruby 1.8.99" (just to make it clear :)

Douglas

Yukihiro Matsumoto

1/11/2005 1:04:00 AM

0

Hi,

In message "Re: A question on Ruby license"
on Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:46:52 +0900, Douglas Livingstone <rampant@gmail.com> writes:
|
|> well:
|> 3. You may distribute the software in object code or executable
|> form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
|> [...]
|> c) give non-standard executables non-standard names, with
|> instructions on where to get the original software distribution.
|
|So not "Ruby 1.8.99" (just to make it clear :)

If you really want to name it "Ruby 1.8.99", discard the Ruby terms,
and apply GPL only. I don't want it though.

matz.
p.s.
It's OK to fork, or create a new language based on Ruby source code.