Update license notifications #235

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
from

Projects

None yet

5 participants

@nahi
Contributor
nahi commented Aug 8, 2011

Follow-up for the documentation revamp at 38705c4.

  • LICENSE -> COPYING: Source files are still pointing COPYING file
  • GNU -> GPL: Follows the file name in CRuby distribution
  • LEGAL: Recovered from docs/old since it has lib/em/buftok.rb.

lib/em/buftok.rb is covered with exactly the same term as EventMachine
itself so LEGAL file would not be needed (I'm not a lawer!)

@nahi nahi Update license notifications
Follow-up for the documentation revamp at 38705c4.

 - LICENSE -> COPYING: Source files are still pointing COPYING file
 - GNU -> GPL: Follows the file name in CRuby distribution
 - LEGAL: Recovered from docs/old since it has lib/em/buftok.rb.

lib/em/buftok.rb is covered with exactly the same term as EventMachine
itself so LEGAL file would not be needed (I'm not a lawer!)
89ae00a
Contributor
tmm1 commented Aug 8, 2011

The rename from COPYING to LICENSE was done recently. I think we want to change any references still left. /cc @raggi

@tarcieri: Do you mind if we license buftok.rb under the same dual gpl/ruby license as the rest of EM?

tarcieri commented Aug 8, 2011

Sure, go for it

Contributor
nahi commented Aug 8, 2011

We CRuby committers understand that the license of CRuby is a single license which requires 'GPL or blah' so lib/em/buftok.rb is covered already with the same license I think. The main problem is that COPYING file points LEGAL file, and you have nothing to write in LEGAL file. :-)

OT: CRuby license will be changed from 1.9.3.

Contributor
raggi commented Aug 9, 2011

I think I asked Francis if we could MIT it a while ago. IIRC, he said yes, but as my memory is vague, we'll have to check.

The problem with referencing "the ruby license" via "as the same terms as ruby" is that this is about to change.

I'd rather simplify.

Either way, we need a contributor licensing statement. I would like all contributions to be treated as freely as MIT.

On Aug 7, 2011, at 11:56 PM, tmm1 wrote:

The rename from COPYING to LICENSE was done recently. I think we want to change any references still left. /cc @raggi

@tarcieri: Do you mind if we license buftok.rb under the same dual gpl/ruby license as the rest of EM?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#235 (comment)

Contributor
tmm1 commented Oct 5, 2011

Would be nice to figure out licensing for the 1.0 release as well.

Contributor
raggi commented Oct 6, 2011

Tony has given the thumbs up to change the license on his bits to MIT.

I'm contacting Kirk to see about his pieces (iirc, fastfilestreamer), and I'll try and dig up that mail from Francis

Contributor
raggi commented Oct 6, 2011

lol, one response included:

delete all the comments

Contributor
raggi commented Oct 6, 2011

Kirk said yes too

The official Ruby License has now changed quite a bit. It is now BSD based instead of GPL, so some people (myself included) can find the reference to the "Ruby License" confusing.

Are you still considering changing to MIT? That would make it very obvious what is and is not allowed.

If not, can I still use this gem as a dependency for my proprietary, closed source application without having to release it as open source?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment