# License change? **URL:** \ **Category:** IronRuby\ **Created:** [June 4, 2010, 9:46am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-change/189634 "2010-06-04T09:46:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jsoho)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 9:46am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-change/189634/1 "2010-06-04T09:46:09Z")
As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft Public License ([Microsoft Public License – Open Source Initiative](http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html)). 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](http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php)). 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? ~Jimmy ---
**Author:** ![jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jsoho)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-change/189634/2 "2010-06-04T13:13:59Z")
Any specific reasons for choosing Apache, as opposed to BSD (or even MIT)? On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jimmy S. \< ---
**Author:** ![jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jsoho)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-change/189634/3 "2010-06-04T16:14:17Z")
Apache would be wonderful! BSD or MIT would be even better. From: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] On Behalf Of Mark Rendle Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 5:13 AM To: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] License change? Any specific reasons for choosing Apache, as opposed to BSD (or even MIT)? On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jimmy S. \ wrote: As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft Public License ([Microsoft Public License – Open Source Initiative](http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html)). 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](http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php)). 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? ~Jimmy * * * Ironruby-core mailing list removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) [http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core](http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core) Join our mailing list and stay current on our products and services designed to build your business - visit > **[Manage Your Property Estimating Solutions Email Preferences](https://www.verisk.com/insurance/campaigns/property-estimating-solutions-mailing-list/)** > > Join the Verisk property estimating solutions mailing list or adjust preferences for emails you are receiving. ---
**Author:** ![jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jsoho)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-change/189634/4 "2010-06-11T18:28:27Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jsoho)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-change/189634/5 "2010-06-04T16:26:36Z")
+0,5 for Apache +1 for MIT or BSD ---
**Author:** ![jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jsoho)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-change/189634/6 "2010-06-17T16:22:37Z")
Thought it might be something like that. Fair enough then. Apache 2.0 is a step in the right direction. On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Jimmy S. \< ---
**Author:** ![jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jsoho)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-change/189634/7 "2010-06-11T18:29:02Z")
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. From: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] On Behalf Of Mark Rendle Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 4:13 AM To: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] License change? Any specific reasons for choosing Apache, as opposed to BSD (or even MIT)? On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jimmy S. \ wrote: As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft Public License ([Microsoft Public License – Open Source Initiative](http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html)). 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](http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php)). 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? ~Jimmy ---
**Author:** ![jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@jsoho](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jsoho)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-change/189634/8 "2010-06-17T19:22:55Z")
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. \<