License question

Ruby
1

Hello all,

I have translated a Perl module that grabs info from wma files to Ruby.
This
module’s license says:

This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the same terms as Perl itself.

I wonder how I should or have to license my Ruby library accordingly, as
when
I say ‘translated’ I mean it is very similar to the original right
down to
variable names etc. I usually license my scripts using the Artistic
license,
but I wonder how Ruby library code is usually licenced?

As an aside, I am quite new to Ruby so the library could stand a review
before
I package and release it to see if I am doing anything braindead. If you
can
spare the time download it from here:
http://badcomputer.org/unix/code/wmainfo/wmainfo.rb

Thanks for consideration,
-d

2

On Friday 16 June 2006 02:27, darren kirby wrote:

when I say ‘translated’ I mean it is very similar to the original right
down to variable names etc. I usually license my scripts using the Artistic
license, but I wonder how Ruby library code is usually licenced?

I’m no copyright lawyer, but it sounds to me like it would be considered
a
derivative work. If you wish to release your version under a different
license, you could always email the author and ask for their views on
the
issue.

Is the Perl license not a dual Artistic license and GPL scheme? I guess
(hope)
you’re currently using the GPL-compatible Clarified Artistic License,
but the
Perl license is also GPL compatible through it’s dual-licensing.

Ruby library code is often licensed under the same terms as Ruby:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt
Much like the perl license, this allows distribution under two different
licensing schemes - the GPL or what seems to me to be a New BSDish
license.

Of course there is variety in license selection, others may opt for an
MIT/BSD
license, or go straight for the GPL. Using the GPL in library code may
mean
some people can’t or don’t wish to use it in their codebase, but of
course
it’s your choice to make.

Thanks for consideration,
-d
Hope I’ve been some help.

Alex

3

On Jun 16, 2006, at 8:50, A. S. Bradbury wrote:

derivative work. If you wish to release your version under a different
license, you could always email the author and ask for their views
on the
issue.

I’d say the same, legally speaking. Including the bit about not
being a lawyer.

I’d also consider this: even if the code was substantially different,
the functionality is the same, and based on the same idea.

To me, that would represent an ethical argument to stick with the
terms of the license from the original code, given that it’s an open
license at least similar to the one you prefer. I’d say this
argument is particularly strong if the library you’re porting was a
substantial and unique contribution of that individual, but it’s a
really weak argument if it’s a simple idea that just didn’t happen to
exist yet in Perl.

Whether this argument deserves more weight than…

  • your personal preference for the Artistic License
  • practical concerns (e.g., LGPL vs. GPL vs. MIT)
  • what your horoscope says
    is, like Alex said, entirely up to you.

matthew smillie.

4

On 6/15/06, darren kirby [email protected] wrote:

variable names etc. I usually license my scripts using the Artistic license,
but I wonder how Ruby library code is usually licenced?

Since Perl can be distributed under either the GPL or the Artistic
license, this Perl module you translated from can likewise be
distributed under either one. IMO, your code is a derivative work, and
thus would also fall under those same conditions: that is, I believe
you may choose to distribute your ruby lib under either GPL or
Artistic.

The Ruby license is similar to Perl’s: you may distribute Ruby under
the GPL or else under some custom licensing terms that you can read
about at http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt (Matz is a big fan of
Larry’s, and you’ll notice that these custom terms look like they were
modeled after the Artistic license).

(Incidentally, from what I can tell (from reading an interview with
Matz on _Why’s blog), Matz isn’t totally happy with the dual licensing
details, and if possible, licensing may change in the future (that is,
to get rid of the custom licensing terms in favor of a more commonly
used standard license). I don’t know any details beyond that though.)

It’s very common to see Ruby code licensed similar to Perl code –
i.e. it’ll say, “You may distribute this code under the same terms as
Ruby itself”.

I’m guessing that, since your code will be used by Ruby or other Ruby
modules, and may itself use other Ruby modules, then it must have a
compatible license.

Regarding the Artistic license (the one currently used with Perl5),
the FSF licensing page mentions it:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#ArtisticLicense . You
can read its text at http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html . The
fsf asserts that it’s vague and incompatible with the GPL.

So, in my opinion, I’d just license the module under the GPL.

—John

5

quoth the Patrick H.:

I wonder how I should or have to license my Ruby library accordingly,

I would second the notion of contacting the author to get permission
to license with the same terms as Ruby. The licenses are very close,
and I doubt this would break the spirit of the author’s request – but
it does violate the letter, so contact the author.

I have just done so.

I sent him a link to the Ruby license and said I would prefer to license
it
using the Ruby license if it was acceptable to him.

If you cannot contact them, just use the original author’s same
licensing, I don’t see any real practical differences in how it would
affect most developers. I like the GPL for some things, but I would
not release a library with only GPL licensing.

I guess it really doesn’t make a difference at the end of the day, but I
thought it would be odd to see a Ruby lib released under the Perl
license…

pth

Thanks for the responses everyone, my head hurts thinking about all
these
license issues!

-d

6

On 6/15/06, darren kirby [email protected] wrote:

Hello all,

I have translated a Perl module that grabs info from wma files to Ruby. This
module’s license says:

This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the same terms as Perl itself.

I wonder how I should or have to license my Ruby library accordingly,

I would second the notion of contacting the author to get permission
to license with the same terms as Ruby. The licenses are very close,
and I doubt this would break the spirit of the author’s request – but
it does violate the letter, so contact the author.

If you cannot contact them, just use the original author’s same
licensing, I don’t see any real practical differences in how it would
affect most developers. I like the GPL for some things, but I would
not release a library with only GPL licensing.

pth