As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft
Public License (Microsoft Public License – Open Source Initiative). Occasionally
we hear feedback, questions, and a general lack of familiarity about the
license that IronRuby uses. In several instances, users ask why
IronRuby doesn’t use a more popular license. We are therefore
considering switching our license to a well-known open-source license;
specifically the Apache License, Version 2.0
(Apache License, Version 2.0 – Open Source Initiative). However, the pieces of
IronRuby which are licensed under CPL and the Ruby license will not
change (pieces from MRI which IronRuby redistributes, and YAML).
We’d like to hear your feedback before we make any decisions. Do you
think adopting a more popular license, such as the Apache License, would
be a good change for IronRuby?
Any specific reasons for choosing Apache, as opposed to BSD (or even
MIT)?
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jimmy S.
<[email protected]mailto:[email protected]>
wrote:
As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft
Public License (Microsoft Public License – Open Source Initiative). Occasionally
we hear feedback, questions, and a general lack of familiarity about the
license that IronRuby uses. In several instances, users ask why
IronRuby doesn’t use a more popular license. We are therefore
considering switching our license to a well-known open-source license;
specifically the Apache License, Version 2.0
(Apache License, Version 2.0 – Open Source Initiative). However, the pieces of
IronRuby which are licensed under CPL and the Ruby license will not
change (pieces from MRI which IronRuby redistributes, and YAML).
We’d like to hear your feedback before we make any decisions. Do you
think adopting a more popular license, such as the Apache License, would
be a good change for IronRuby?
Anyone else have any thoughts on switching to Apache 2? I’d hope that a
license change will help with the “what is the Microsoft Public License”
confusion in the vast majority of the open-source world … what are
your thoughts?
I know that MIT or BSD are by far the most-used licenses for Ruby libs,
but Apache 2 has had the most success in greasing the open-source wheels
at Microsoft, and it’s a license both teams can agree on.
Any specific reasons for choosing Apache, as opposed to BSD (or even
MIT)?
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jimmy S.
<[email protected]mailto:[email protected]>
wrote:
As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft
Public License (Microsoft Public License – Open Source Initiative). Occasionally
we hear feedback, questions, and a general lack of familiarity about the
license that IronRuby uses. In several instances, users ask why
IronRuby doesn’t use a more popular license. We are therefore
considering switching our license to a well-known open-source license;
specifically the Apache License, Version 2.0
(Apache License, Version 2.0 – Open Source Initiative). However, the pieces of
IronRuby which are licensed under CPL and the Ruby license will not
change (pieces from MRI which IronRuby redistributes, and YAML).
We’d like to hear your feedback before we make any decisions. Do you
think adopting a more popular license, such as the Apache License, would
be a good change for IronRuby?
The only problem I see is that others may question why MSPL isn’t good
enough. I don’t know if that’s a bad thing; I was always somewhat
confused
by the existence of a new license that didn’t seem altogether different
from
others. Apache 2 works for me.
Ryan R.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Jimmy S. <
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.