# MIT vs. Ruby/GPL License **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [October 14, 2007, 3:32pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188 "2007-10-14T15:32:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 3:32pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/1 "2007-10-14T15:32:52Z")
Rails uses the MIT license. The Ruby license is essentially the GPL (it’s a dual license). So what are the basic differences between the two and why would you pick one over the other? Thanks, T. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 5:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/2 "2007-10-14T17:30:27Z")
On Sunday 14 October 2007 09:31 am, Trans wrote: > Rails uses the MIT license. The Ruby license is essentially the GPL > (it’s a dual license). > > So what are the basic differences between the two and why would you > pick one over the other? Interesting question, and one I’m tempted to answer even though others are certainly better quailified. (I.e., IANAE(xpert)) I guess I’ll consider this a learning exercise, to see how much I do know. (Aside: I’m curious: I’m a little surprised you haven’t come across and come to some resolution on the issues involved–do you program primarily in Windows as opposed to Linux?) I have trouble remembering things, I remember less about the MIT license than the GPL license, and know (if I can remember) most about the GPL version 2. First of all both the MIT and GPL licenses are in some sense “free”. The meaning of free in this context is freedom as opposed to free beer. Richard Stallman, the guy who, at least in some sense, started the drive towards a free operating system, originated and advocates the GPL license. He lists four freedoms that could be associated with software–can I remember them to recite them or must I look them up? Hmm, I guess I’ll refer you to the following page which contains the GNU’s “Free Software Definition” (gnu is (one of?) the organizations founded by Richard Stallman, the other being the FSF (or are they the same organization–I guess I don’t really know)): > **[What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)** > > Since 1983, developing the free Unix style operating system GNU, so that computer users can have the freedom to share and improve the software they use. When you read over that page, pay particular attention to “copyleft”–the primary difference between the GPL and other free (??) licenses (like the MIT license) is the copyleft part–the GPL requires copyleft, many others (MIT, BSD, … do not). (Richard Stallman considers free licenses without copyleft to be non-free.) I anticipate releasing any software I write under the GPL license. There are other choices like dual licenses and, hmm, I forget what they call them, but like what Ghostscript and some others do–(iirc) they initially release their software (i.e., current versions) under a license other than the GPL, and then after some period of time (or at the release of the next version) they release the older version under the GPL. Aside: If you get into dual licenses, take any recent writings on the subject by Theo de Raadt (the OpenBSD founder) with a grain of salt–in a fairly recent dispute, he made the claim that dual licenses required that the terms of both licenses be applicable, whereas most dual licenses are specified with an “or” (you can license it this way or that way–of course a dual license could be written with an “and”–I’m not sure that would be useful in any way). BTW, other issues to consider are which software can be intermixed in some way even though they use different licenses. Another way of looking at it the general subject is this: With a license like the MIT (and BSD, and …) you give away your software (almost) unconditionally, anybody can take your software and use it for any purpose without returning anything to you (they can make a proprietary package from it, make a fortune, and not share anything with you). With a license like the GPL, your software gift is conditional–the receiver of the gift must (to use a phrase that I haven’t heard in this context before) “pay it forward”. In other words, they must keep the gift available including any improvements they may make. You can make money with either type of license, but it is ususally by means of a service model than a use model. To clarify, a way of making money with free software is selling support for it, as opposed to selling a license for its use. Note that the GPL does allow you to charge for the software, but anyone who buys your software can re-distribute it at a lower price, down to zero (or negative numbers??). There is also a (potential) different issue (??) related to selling the source code–the intent (and words), iirc, is that you can only recoup your (copying) costs (or a reasonable fee–I forget what it says) for the source code. At most, this is just a start. Do some reading and ask some questions. regards, Randy K. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 6:07pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/3 "2007-10-14T18:07:51Z")
Trans wrote: > Rails uses the MIT license. The Ruby license is essentially the GPL > (it’s a dual license). > > So what are the basic differences between the two and why would you > pick one over the other? > > Thanks, > T. T., I normally enjoy your posts, and I do hate to be negative, but it feels like ruby-talk has been plagued with a lot of 200-followup-barely-on-topic threads lately, and your post could easily be (given this strong opinions that people can form about FOSS licensing) the start of yet another. Would it be too much to ask for you to go off and read some of the commentary on these licenses that can be found on the web, form some conclusions, and then, if necessary (and I don’t think it will be) follow up with “I’ve read this material and this is what I think and here are some RUBY-SPECIFIC questions I have or conclusions I’ve come to that I’d like to share?” You can start your research with the text of the licenses. MIT is here: [The MIT License – Open Source Initiative](http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php). GPL here: [http://www.gnu.org](http://www.gnu.org). I notice several books are available on Amazon, including _Understanding\_Open\_Source\_and\_Free\_Software\_Licensing_. To the list, I apologize. I try to keep my posts positive, contributory, and on-topic. I recognize that this one is simply cranky. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 6:17pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/4 "2007-10-14T18:17:48Z")
On Oct 14, 8:29 am, Randy K. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > a learning exercise, to see how much I do know. > > (Aside: I’m curious: I’m a little surprised you haven’t come across and come > to some resolution on the issues involved–do you program primarily in > Windows as opposed to Linux?) Me too 😉 I’ve been using the Ruby license. But everything I’ve done until now has been purely open. That’s about to change though, so the question becomes a more important one. > them to recite them or must I look them up? > license) is the copyleft part–the GPL requires copyleft, many others (MIT, > > Another way of looking at it the general subject is this: > > With a license like the MIT (and BSD, and …) you give away your software > (almost) unconditionally, anybody can take your software and use it for any > purpose without returning anything to you (they can make a proprietary > package from it, make a fortune, and not share anything with you). So MIT is more akin to BSD --less restrictive. > Note that the GPL does allow you to charge for the software, but anyone who > buys your software can re-distribute it at a lower price, down to zero (or > negative numbers??). > > There is also a (potential) different issue (??) related to selling the source > code–the intent (and words), iirc, is that you can only recoup your > (copying) costs (or a reasonable fee–I forget what it says) for the source > code. > > At most, this is just a start. Do some reading and ask some questions. Very helpful thank you. For the moment I will hone in on one question: If a gem is released under GPL and your app depends on it, does that mean your source must also be freely available in a way compatible to the GPL? If not, then what about if you drop the same library into your vendor/ directory and redistribute it along with your app? Thanks, T. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 5:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/5 "2007-10-14T17:50:19Z")
MIT license does have one restriction: QTE The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. UNQTE Which in practice means that you should remember adding a copyright statement at the top of the LICENSE file. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 6:42pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/6 "2007-10-14T18:42:21Z")
On Sunday 14 October 2007 12:17 pm, Trans wrote: > On Oct 14, 8:29 am, Randy K. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > On Sunday 14 October 2007 09:31 am, Trans wrote: > > I’ve been using the Ruby license. But everything I’ve done until now > > has been purely open. That’s about to change though, so the question > > becomes a more important one. Thanks! I should point out that _after_ I pressed send, I read the page that I referred you to (and some pages linked from that page) a little more carefully (they seem to be pages I hadn’t seen before–I guess it’s been fairly a long time since I dug into this stuff), and realize that some of my previous statements were not accurate. The first being that Richard Stallman _does_ consider some licenses without copyleft to be free. If I recognize others as I reread what I wrote, I’ll try to point them out. > So MIT is more akin to BSD --less restrictive. That is my belief, but I should admit that I haven’t had much exposure to the MIT license. > > At most, this is just a start. Do some reading and ask some questions. > > Very helpful thank you. For the moment I will hone in on one question: You’re welcome! (But after my further reading, I’m beginning to believe I should have let somebody else dip their foot in the water first. 😉 > If a gem is released under GPL and your app depends on it, does that > mean your source must also be freely available in a way compatible to > the GPL? If not, then what about if you drop the same library into > your vendor/ directory and redistribute it along with your app? I don’t think I can give an instant (correct 😉 answer to that. I’d suggest you look for and read up on the LGPL–it was originally intended to stand for the Library GPL, but has since been changed to stand for the Lesser GPL, but its focus is on issues related to your concern. Good luck! Randy K. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 7:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/7 "2007-10-14T19:50:49Z")
On Oct 14, 10:00 am, “Terry P.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I don’t think the difference between MIT and GPL License has much purpose in > connection with Ruby 🙂 Let’s go license free! Kind of like skinny dipping 😉 > As far as licenses go: > > I generally find the ISC, MIT/X and BSD Style licenses (in that order) much > preferable to the GPL. Namely because it does not have much chance to get in > my way. I also don’t trust the Free Software Foundation and their GPL not to > screw me over at a later day (e.g. GPL 2 or above; e.t.c.) > > Any one with questions about the GPL should check the FAQ > > [Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html) That link helped --well almost. This is what it says on the subject: _What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two modules into one program"? Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program._ _``` Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they_ _```_ form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL–if you can’t, or won’t, do that, you may not combine them. ``` What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a ``` legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). ``` If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are ``` definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program. ``` By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are ``` _communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program._ Kind of fuzzy. T. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 7:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/8 "2007-10-14T19:02:51Z")
I don’t think the difference between MIT and GPL License has much purpose in connection with Ruby 🙂 As far as licenses go: I generally find the ISC, MIT/X and BSD Style licenses (in that order) much preferable to the GPL. Namely because it does not have much chance to get in my way. I also don’t trust the Free Software Foundation and their GPL not to screw me over at a later day (e.g. GPL 2 or above; e.t.c.) Any one with questions about the GPL should check the FAQ [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html) and the actual text (yes it is boring) [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html](http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) Older versions are probably available online. Then compare it with the very short in comparason license texts of the other licenses. That will help any one a lot more the chatter on Ruby-Talk (no offense meant to other subscribers). Most stuff I write with any intention of leaving ~/code/_/src/ has a topper in it, some thing like this. Which is basically a template for the ISC License for any language that uses the # symbol for comments. I keep a ~/code/licenses/\ # # # ################################################################################ # # # Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any # # purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above # # copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. # # # # THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES # # WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF # # MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR # # ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES # # WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN # # ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF # # OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. # # # ################################################################################ I also like the joke version of the BSD License on the _uncyclopedia_ although I don’t actually use it in programs. I think the joking makes a good point of what a license should allow. I.e. Do what ever the hell you want with it, just remember who wrote it, and the author is not responsible for damages. [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/BSD#License](http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/BSD#License) TerryP. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 8:25pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/9 "2007-10-14T20:25:54Z")
Trans wrote: > ## The Ruby license says that you can use the the GPL, or you can use the explicit terms of the Ruby license. Here’s the text of the Ruby license. Ruby is copyrighted free software by Yukihiro M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid). You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the GPL (see COPYING.txt file), or the conditions below: 1. You may make and give away verbatim copies of the source form of the software without restriction, provided that you duplicate all of the original copyright notices and associated disclaimers. 2. You may modify your copy of the software in any way, provided that you do at least ONE of the following: 3. You may distribute the software in object code or executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following: 4. You may modify and include the part of the software into any other software (possibly commercial). But some files in the distribution are not written by the author, so that they are not under this terms. 5. The scripts and library files supplied as input to or produced as output from the software do not automatically fall under the copyright of the software, but belong to whomever generated them, and may be sold commercially, and may be aggregated with this software. 6. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 8:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/10 "2007-10-14T20:08:21Z")
Trans wrote: > interchanged). > intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too > could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger > program. > > Kind of fuzzy. > > T. All this proves is that the distinction between the English language and code is starting to erode, and when a programmer, like Richard M. Stallman, dabbles in Law, it gets worse. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 8:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/11 "2007-10-14T20:36:27Z")
On 10/14/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > The Ruby license says that you can use the the GPL, or you can use the > explicit terms of the Ruby license. Except for some of the source files you cannot… because those are GPL. See quotes below. Ruby license is a rather weird device that shouldn’t be used for anything other than Ruby itself. QTE LICENSE But some files in the distribution are not written by the author, so that they are not under this terms. They are gc.c(partly), utils.c(partly), regex.[ch], st.[ch] and some files under the ./missing directory. See each file for the copying condition. UNQTE LICENSE QTE regex.c you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License UNQTE regex.c ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 8:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/12 "2007-10-14T20:30:35Z")
Ok, this is relevant in that it is a big software issue, but let’s just end this thread. It will only become an argument, and often an un-civil one. If you want to know more about the various licensing concepts, just start in Wikipedia. There is plenty there to get you going. It is a deeply contentious issue and extremely difficult to discuss reasonably. We will do good to Ruby-Talk by leaving this discussion for other forums. Slashdot is a typical one. If you have questions about the license of a particular gem or Ruby itself, address their creators, they do put their e-mail addresses in the licensing information in the software distribution. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 9:01pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/13 "2007-10-14T21:01:06Z")
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 02:50:29AM +0900, Trans wrote: > Kind of fuzzy. My understanding is that a gem distributed under the terms of the GPL then causes the program in which you use it via a `require` statement to be subject to the terms of the GPL as well. This is, for an interpreted program such as one using the reference implementation of Ruby, roughly equivalent to a statically linked library in a binary compiled program written in C – where the GPL would certainly apply to the whole program if the library were distributed under the terms of the GPL. On the other hand, the source _without the library_ could be distributed under whatever other license you like. If it were distributed under a license with which the GPL is not compatible, however, anyone who received it would then not be able to compile it with the GPLed library statically linked and subsequently distribute it, since the terms of the GPL and those of the other license you used would be in direct legal conflict with one another. Moral of the story – don’t license your code under the CDDL if it requires a GPLed library and you want people to be able to compile and redistribute the software (such as via the software management system of a Linux distribution or BSD Unix OS) legally. I won’t comment for the moment on the wisdom of using the BSD license, the CDDL, or the GPL, in and of themselves, because this is ruby-talk and flame wars are bad. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I just think about stuff like this a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 9:03pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/14 "2007-10-14T21:03:26Z")
From: “Randy K.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > > If a gem is released under GPL and your app depends on it, does that > > mean your source must also be freely available in a way compatible to > > the GPL? If not, then what about if you drop the same library into > > your vendor/ directory and redistribute it along with your app? > > I don’t think I can give an instant (correct 😉 answer to that. I’d suggest > you look for and read up on the LGPL–it was originally intended to stand for > the Library GPL, but has since been changed to stand for the Lesser GPL, but > its focus is on issues related to your concern. Indeed. I’m writing a partly open source, partly closed source application at the moment. Any library released under GPL is off-limits to me (unless it is a library bundled with the operating system.) (Which is fine, if that’s really what the library author intended.) Personally I’ll not release a _library_ under the GPL, since I prefer to impose the fewest restrictions on who can link with my library. Regards, Bill ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 9:05pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/15 "2007-10-14T21:05:11Z")
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 01:06:38AM +0900, Tim H. wrote: > > > > commentary on these licenses that can be found on the web, form some > To the list, I apologize. I try to keep my posts positive, contributory, > and on-topic. I recognize that this one is simply cranky. I understand the intent behind your commentary, and don’t really see any particular need to apologize. For my part, at least, there’s nothing to forgive. For T.: If you want to discuss it with someone off-list, and think I may be someone that can help, I’ll be happy to discuss the matter with you. I have very specific opinions on the matter, but I’m also of the opinion that everyone should be able to form his or her own opinions, so I’ll try to be as clear about the matter as possible complete with very distinct separation between facts and opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 11:48pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/16 "2007-10-14T23:48:32Z")
Chad P. wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 02:50:29AM +0900, Trans wrote: > > > Kind of fuzzy. > > My understanding is that a gem distributed under the terms of the GPL > then causes the program in which you use it via a `require` statement to > be subject to the terms of the GPL as well. This is, for an interpreted Kind of fuzzy isn’t the half of it! \*It’s not that clear. \* Ruby programs are typically not distributed as compiled works, so each file is separate. You don’t distribute the complete program, only the pieces that you wrote. The gem comes from elsewhere. And the GPL doesn’t limit execution of programs, only distribution. (Most of the commentary is written from the perspective of C programmers, and doesn’t necessarily apply to Ruby programs.) ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 12:25am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/17 "2007-10-15T00:25:20Z")
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 06:47:19AM +0900, Charles D Hixson wrote: > Kind of fuzzy isn’t the half of it! > > \*It’s not that clear. \* Ruby programs are typically not distributed as > compiled works, so each file is separate. You don’t distribute the > complete program, only the pieces that you wrote. The gem comes from > elsewhere. And the GPL doesn’t limit execution of programs, only > distribution. (Most of the commentary is written from the perspective > of C programmers, and doesn’t necessarily apply to Ruby programs.) Yes, but . . . it’s entirely possible that someone might want to ship a bundled application. In such a circumstance, you’re probably trying to make things convenient for an end-user that shouldn’t have to know anything about, say, ruby gems. An installer that sticks everything in place really changes the face of things for you in such a circumstance. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 1:58am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/18 "2007-10-15T01:58:49Z")
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: > All this proves is that the distinction between the English language and > code is starting to erode, and when a programmer, like Richard M. > Stallman, dabbles in Law, it gets worse. 🙂 Stallman is a coder? Didn’t know about that. What did he code? ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2007, 9:11pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/19 "2007-10-14T21:11:37Z")
On 14/10/2007, Trans [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > on the other program. > the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are > separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are > intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too > could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger > program. > > Kind of fuzzy. It is. You cannot decide that unless you go to court, and even then it won’t be final. Note however that there is LGPL for libraries that can be used in non-GPL software so in general you should probably avoid GPL stuff when non-free software is involved. But even in ruby with its marshaling capability, drb, and whatnot you get slight difference between single process and multiprocess situation. iirc it is not possible to restore objects for which the class is not present so you are limited to basic types and objects from libraries you can load in both processes. Thanks Michal ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 2:05am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188/20 "2007-10-15T02:05:50Z")
On Oct 14, 2007, at 18:58 , Daniel DeLorme wrote: > Stallman is a coder? Didn’t know about that. What did he code? Emacs, gcc, gdb… GIYF. Michael G. grzm seespotcode net [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-ruby-gpl-license/117188.md?page=2)