# License question **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [June 16, 2006, 3:28am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-question/63541 "2006-06-16T03:28:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![darren\_kirby](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@darren\_kirby](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/darren_kirby)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 3:28am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-question/63541/1 "2006-06-16T03:28:05Z")
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](http://badcomputer.org/unix/code/wmainfo/wmainfo.rb) Thanks for consideration, -d ---
**Author:** ![darren\_kirby](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@darren\_kirby](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/darren_kirby)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 9:52am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-question/63541/2 "2006-06-16T09:52:04Z")
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](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 ---
**Author:** ![darren\_kirby](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@darren\_kirby](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/darren_kirby)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 12:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-question/63541/3 "2006-06-16T12:08:15Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![darren\_kirby](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@darren\_kirby](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/darren_kirby)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-question/63541/4 "2006-06-16T19:29:48Z")
On 6/15/06, darren kirby [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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](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](http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#ArtisticLicense) . You can read its text at [http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html](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 ---
**Author:** ![darren\_kirby](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@darren\_kirby](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/darren_kirby)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-question/63541/5 "2006-06-16T20:06:50Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![darren\_kirby](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@darren\_kirby](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/darren_kirby)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 7:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/license-question/63541/6 "2006-06-16T19:45:25Z")
> On 6/15/06, darren kirby [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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